On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:42:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think we really need a method to guarantee unique names. It would
> > already help a lot if we just added the table name, or something that was
> > until a short time before the action believed to be the table name, or
> > even only the table OID, before (or after) the $1.
>
> I don't have a problem with switching from "$1" to "tablename_$1", or
> some such, for auto-generated constraint names. But if it's not
> guaranteed unique, does it really satisfy Philip's concern?
It certainly _is_ unique within a schema ...
(But what happens to the constraint name when the table is renamed?)
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"No renuncies a nada. No te aferres a nada."
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
