Re: RI Constraint display

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: elein(at)varlena(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RI Constraint display
Date: 2002-12-31 04:40:18
Message-ID: 27408.1041309618@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, elein wrote:
>> Almost all of the system generated names, sequences, triggers, etc,
>> have constructed names. $n for constrain names seems like an anomaly.

> I think it's been that way for check constraints for a long time unless I
> remember incorrectly.

I think you remember correctly.

The "$n" convention is somewhat arbitrary, but in my mind it certainly
beats the OID-based convention we have used for RI triggers. For one
thing, if you issue the same table declaration twice, you'll get the
same names associated with unnamed constraints...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Garo Hussenjian 2002-12-31 05:44:34 Dump / restore question
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2002-12-31 04:26:02 Re: RI Constraint display