Prev: 9.0 release notes
Next: [HACKERS] SET CONSTRAINTS todo
From: Dan Colish on 3 Jun 2010 18:02
I see what went wrong in my example. Unique constraints must have unique names since they create an index. I'll try again, sorry for the noise.

--Dan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Tom Lane on 4 Jun 2010 00:45
Dan Colish <dcolish(a)gmail.com> writes:
> I wanted to work on this todo item and I have a few questions about
> the semantics of it. Essentially, it is not possible to have more than
> one relname for a constraint,

That is per SQL spec: SQL92 10.6 syntax rule 2 saith

2) The <qualified identifier> of <constraint name> shall be differ-
ent from the <qualified identifier> of the <constraint name> of
any other constraint defined in the same schema.

I believe we are already laxer than the spec, because we don't enforce
that restriction except for index-based constraints. I'm not terribly
excited about trying to make it weaker yet.

> Is the intention of the todo to allow the user to specify a tablename
> which limits the search path to that table's schema or is the feature to
> extend constraints to allow per table naming.

I think the TODO item you're looking at is just about how narrowly you
can specify the target(s) of a SET CONSTRAINTS command. It's not meant
to say anything about what constraint names can be created in the first
place.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: 9.0 release notes
Next: [HACKERS] SET CONSTRAINTS todo