From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Fabien COELHO" <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL Bugs List" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |
Date: | 2010-09-03 15:14:35 |
Message-ID: | 4C80CA8B020000250003517B@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-docs |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2010-09-03 17:39:19 | Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-03 14:58:25 | Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2010-09-03 17:39:19 | Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-03 14:58:25 | Re: issue about information_schema REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS |