Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware
Date: 2003-05-15 17:15:51
Message-ID: 10318.1053018951@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"scott.marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> writes:
> S is the schema, so it would appear they do mean that constraints are
> "contained" so to speak by a schema.

Right. In SQL92 constraint names have to be unique within the table's
schema. Postgres allows two different tables to have similarly-named
constraints, and that difference is the root of the issue.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kurt Roeckx 2003-05-15 19:34:31 Re: Win32, compiles, under, MinGW/Msys!
Previous Message scott.marlowe 2003-05-15 17:00:05 Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware