From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: set constraints docs page |
Date: | 2003-08-19 07:51:51 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.56.0308190949220.4847@krusty.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
> > > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named
> > > constraints currently. We should probably allow <tablename>.<constraint>
> > > (and <schema>.<tablename>.<constraint>) as well. Too late for 7.4, but
> > > this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections.
> >
> > I object.
>
> Thanks for the helpful objection. To what do you object specifically and
> why?
I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard,
which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard
says it is <schema>.<constraint>.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-08-19 08:18:19 | Re: [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc? |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-08-19 07:44:42 | Re: set constraints docs page |