Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Just noticed this:
> pjw=# create table pk1(f1 integer, constraint zzz primary key(f1));
> NOTICE: CREATE TABLE/PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index 'zzz' for
> table 'pk1'
> pjw=# create table zzz(f1 integer);
> ERROR: Relation 'zzz' already exists
> Is there a good reason why the automatically created items do not have a
> 'pg_' in front of their names?
Not a good idea. I think it should probably be pk1_zzz in this case.
If we do either, it will break the recently submitted pg_dump patch that
uses the index name as the constraint name. I thought that patch was
wrongheaded anyway, and would recommend reversing it...
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-11-28 05:38:37|
|Subject: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-11-28 05:07:49|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Indexing for geographic objects? |