Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:42:13AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I don't have a problem with switching from "$1" to "tablename_$1", or > >> some such, for auto-generated constraint names. But if it's not > >> guaranteed unique, does it really satisfy Philip's concern? > > > It certainly _is_ unique within a schema ... > > (But what happens to the constraint name when the table is renamed?) > > Exactly. Also consider manually-assigned constraint names that happen > to look like "foo_$n" --- these could cause trouble if table foo is > created later. To make a guarantee of uniqueness would require more > infrastructure than just a simple hack of the constraint name generator > logic. > > BTW we also have some problems with auto-generated names for column > constraints; these generally look like "tablename_columnname", and > that's not unique: > > regression=# create table foo (f1 int check (f1 > 0) check (f1 < 10)); > ERROR: check constraint "foo_f1" already exists
Is this a TODO to fix? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
