Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> SET CONSTRAINTS doesn't allow you to schema-qualify a constraint name.
> I am pretty sure I saw some comments in the discussion about sequence
> naming that constraints are per table and giving them a schema name
> makes no sense. The table they are for has the schema name in it.
Yeah. We had that discussion at some point during the 7.3 development
cycle, and concluded we liked table-local naming for constraints better
than the SQL spec's global constraint names.
SET CONSTRAINTS still does what it used to do, which is to alter the
behavior of all constraints with the given name. We should probably
expand the syntax so that a particular table name can be mentioned.
regards, tom lane