Kevin Brown wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Added to TODO:
> >
> > * Print table names with constraint names in error messages, or make
> > constraint names unique within a schema
>
>
> Should the TODO also include adding "ALTER TABLE x ALTER CONSTRAINT
> y RENAME TO z" functiona
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Added to TODO:
>
> * Print table names with constraint names in error messages, or make
> constraint names unique within a schema
Should the TODO also include adding "ALTER TABLE x ALTER CONSTRAINT
y RENAME TO z" functionality if we don't make constraint na
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Kevin Brown wrote:
> > > The two approaches aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (though SQL99
> > > compliance on constraint names would obviously make it unnecessary to
> > > specify a tablename along with a constraint name), so I see little
> > > pr
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
> > The two approaches aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (though SQL99
> > compliance on constraint names would obviously make it unnecessary to
> > specify a tablename along with a constraint name), so I see little
> > problem here. But the current ar
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard,
> > >> which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard
> > >> says it is ..
> >
> > > Is there a case for e
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard,
> >> which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard
> >> says it is ..
>
> > Is there a case for enforcing uniqueness on constraint
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
>
> > > > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named
> > > > constraints currently. We should probably allow .
> > > > (and ..) as well. Too late for 7.4, but
> > > > this can happen for 7.5 if
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard,
>> which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard
>> says it is ..
> Is there a case for enforcing uniqueness on constraint names, then?
Other than "S
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Stephan Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Hackers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1
Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
> > > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named
> > > constraints currently. We should probably allow .
> > > (and ..) as well. Too late for 7.4, but
> > > this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections.
> >
> > I object.
>
> Thanks
> > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named
> > constraints currently. We should probably allow .
> > (and ..) 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 objec
Stephan Szabo writes:
> It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named
> constraints currently. We should probably allow .
> (and ..) as well. Too late for 7.4, but
> this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections.
I object.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I notice on the SET CONSTRAINTS doc page, it says SET CONSTRAINTS
> ...
> But it doesn't at all make it clear what is, since cosntraint
> names are per-relation I thought?
Looking at the code, it will set the mode for *all* FKs with the sam
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I notice on the SET CONSTRAINTS doc page, it says SET CONSTRAINTS
> ...
>
> But it doesn't at all make it clear what is, since cosntraint
> names are per-relation I thought?
It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all su
Hi,
I notice on the SET CONSTRAINTS doc page, it says SET CONSTRAINTS
...
But it doesn't at all make it clear what is, since cosntraint
names are per-relation I thought?
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire
15 matches
Mail list logo
