> > The only problem with this is that I don't want the rename of a
> > constraint to have to fall over into the pg_depend table.
pg_depend
> > is currently happy with system OIDS or a Relation OID and some
unique
> > number to represent it -- much as pg_description wouldn't want to
know
> > the name of the constraint for the ability to add a comment to it.
>
> Good points, but I think those argue for assigning OIDs to
constraints
> after all. If that is what you want connum for then I have a *big*
Yes, OIDs are probably the right way to go.
> problem with it: aren't you assuming that connum will be distinct
from
> any attribute number that the relation might have? What's going to
As far as pg_depend goes, it doesn't care whether they overlap or not
as it knows the source (class) relation is pg_constraint.
Comment on stuff would need to be changed though.
> I had once thought that we could avoid assigning OIDs to rules and
> triggers, but learned differently as I got into the implementation.
> I'm thinking that constraints will be the same kind of thing; it'll
> be a lot easier if you give them OIDs.
Sounds like a plan. I'll
