Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes:
> Peter may have been alluding to this, and I misunderstood, but one idea
> might be to present a mangled name in the information schema; since the
> spec expects them to be unique, perhaps the schema should present them as
> unique.
Doesn't seem like this would work very well; an application that tried
to do anything with the constraint names it got from the view would soon
find that they were wrong. (And if you don't want to do anything with
the info you get from the view, why are you bothering to look at it?)
Your argument that we should add the table name to the view does have
some merit though.
regards, tom lane