On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> For constraints, we'd need to change the code to be more careful to
> >> generate unique names for unnamed constraints. That doesn't seem
>
> > Another question would be what to do with inherited constraints that
> > conflict in multiple inheritance cases. It'd probably be safe to rename
> > those on the child table to be unique,
>
> I'd just raise an error, I think, unless perhaps the constraints are
> identical (for some definition of identical). We don't allow
> conflicting column definitions to be inherited, so why constraints?
Good point. That's probably better than autorenaming them.
