Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> 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.
> >
> > > Is this a TODO?
> >
> > Nobody objected to my statement, so I guess so ...
>
> I just hate to see us breaking the SQL standard for no technical reason.
Does it actually break the standard of just extend it. I don't see any
problem with extending it.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073