Clark C. Evans wrote:
>| > * Issue a warning when creating a constraint who's name is
>| > not unique within its (the constraint's) schema.
>| I don't have a problem with it (once, I argued for following the spec
>| constraint on this way back when), however I think this was proposed and
>| rejected before as excess noise. You might want to look back through the
>I think the problem /w the noise was that default trigger names were
>not automatically prefixed with the table name. I'd like to see this
>warning; perhaps in the next release, the ``dump`` module can rename
>constraints like $1 and $2 to include the table name?
>Given that both of these issues consist of first changing the dumper and
>making an optional warning (at first) and then turning it into an error
>way down the line, could they be considered part of the same ticket?
Ticket? :-) You might like to read up on how our development process
works. See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_DEV.html
Among other things, note that we don't really have a ticket system.
More substantively, I think making an option to have pg_dump prepend the
table name to autogenned $n type constraint names is not a bad idea.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: James William Pye||Date: 2006-02-26 21:45:27|
|Subject: Re: Pl/Python -- current maintainer?|
|Previous:||From: Clark C. Evans||Date: 2006-02-26 21:17:31|
|Subject: Re: constraints and sql92 information_schema compliance|