From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Duplicate constraint names in 7.0.3 |
Date: | 2001-05-04 03:24:29 |
Message-ID: | 22759.988946669@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> If I read the spec correctly, table constraint names are supposed to be
> unique across a schema.
That's what the spec says, but I doubt we should enforce it. For one
thing, what do you do with inherited constraints? Invent a random name
for them? No thanks. The absolute limit of what I'd accept is
constraint name unique for a given table ... and even that seems like
an unnecessary restriction.
>> I was just fiddling around with trying to implement the 'DROP CONSTRAINT'
>> code (it's quite hard - don't wait up for me!) and it would seem to be a bad
>> thing that it's possible to have two constraints with the same name in a
>> table.
A reasonable interpretation of DROP CONSTRAINT "foo" is to drop *all*
constraints named "foo" on the target table.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-05-04 03:28:42 | Re: Packaging 7.1.1 |
Previous Message | mlw | 2001-05-04 03:20:45 | Re: New Linux xfs/reiser file systems |