On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:07:30 -0400, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.
I think one way to extend it would be to allow three formats for naming
the constraint.
Using just the constraint name would do all tables with that constraint
name. Using table_name.constraint_name would only check in the first
table named table_name in the current schema path for a matching constraint.
Using schema.table.constraint would only look at the specific table for
a matching constraint.