On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I notice on the SET CONSTRAINTS doc page, it says SET CONSTRAINTS
> <constraint> ...
>
> But it doesn't at all make it clear what <constraint> is, since cosntraint
> names are per-relation I thought?
It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named
constraints currently. We should probably allow <tablename>.<constraint>
(and <schema>.<tablename>.<constraint>) as well. Too late for 7.4, but
this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections.