> Actually I'm in favor of it. I have a proposal outstanding to require
> constraints to have names that are unique per-table, for consistency
> with triggers (already are that way) and rules (will become that way,
> rather than having globally unique names as now). AFAIR the only
> significant
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm thinking of doing a patch to generate foo_fkey and foo_chk names for
> fk's and checks. I know that this will make using DROP CONSTRAINT a whole
> heck of a lot easier. There have also been a few people who've complained
> on the list a
Yes! Please do something with those unnamed constraints.
---
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm thinking of doing a patch to generate foo_fkey and foo_chk names for
> fk's and checks. I know that this will make
Hi,
I'm thinking of doing a patch to generate foo_fkey and foo_chk names for
fk's and checks. I know that this will make using DROP CONSTRAINT a whole
heck of a lot easier. There have also been a few people who've complained
on the list about all the foreign keys, etc.
I know Tom had some fea
