Re: set constraints docs page

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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