Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Yeah, exactly. I think that the current tradeoff is just fine.
> If you want SQL-standard behavior, pick SQL-standard constraint
> names, and there you are.
I see that as the crux if it -- the current implementation *allows*
standard-conforming behavior, even though it doesn't *enforce*
conforming naming. The proposed alternative does not allow
standard-conforming behavior. If you're going to use something
which is PostgreSQL-specific, you may as well write your own views
or use the "native" tables and views directly.
-Kevin