Re: [BUGS] issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.00.1102200825550.2423@localhost6.localdomain6 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS
(Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: [BUGS] issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) Re: [BUGS] issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-docs |
Hello Bruce, >>>> Is that the direction we want to go, or would it be better to factor >>>> the information out into a separate page about compatibility gotchas? >>> >>> It would probably be better to explain globally applicable issues in a >>> separate section. >> >> I agree that a general caveat is better, together with a one line >> reference in the documentation of each table with an issue. > > Oh, I just noticed this. Can you give me a list of information_schema > tables that have this issue? I am only aware of > referential_constraints. Possibly any relation which references constraints with a (catalog, schema, name) triplet expecting it to be unique should have this issue. From a quick scan on the information_schema, I would say: - check_constraint_routine_usage - check_constraints - constraint_column_usage (*) - constraint_table_usage (*) - domain_constraints - referential_constraints - table_constraints (*) For the three starred relations, the issue is not too big because a constraint name is unique per table in pgsql, and the table name is also given in these relations. This issue makes the "information_schema" pretty useless for being really use for serious work as the data can be ambiguous, so I still claim that for me this is a real "bug" rather than just a "feature", which is the status reached once a bug is documented:-) When constraint names are generated by postgresql, ISTM that the software is free to choose them so they could be chosen non ambiguous per schema. When users choose colliding names, I agree that it would break existing schemas, but there could be an option to enforce uniqueness of the name per schema if desired. I know there are some underlying issues with that that were discussed previously. Anyway I would appreciate something that it appears in the "todo" list, even if it is never implemented:-) -- Fabien.
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: