OK, got it. Thank you for the clarifications.
--elein
On Monday 30 December 2002 20:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, elein wrote:
> >> Almost all of the system generated names, sequences, triggers, etc,
> >> have constructed names. $n for constrain names seems like an anomaly.
> >
> > I think it's been that way for check constraints for a long time unless I
> > remember incorrectly.
>
> I think you remember correctly.
>
> The "$n" convention is somewhat arbitrary, but in my mind it certainly
> beats the OID-based convention we have used for RI triggers. For one
> thing, if you issue the same table declaration twice, you'll get the
> same names associated with unnamed constraints...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
elein@varlena.com Database Consulting www.varlena.com
I have always depended on the [QA] of strangers.