Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> SET CONSTRAINTS doesn't allow you to schema-qualify a constraint name.
>
> > I am pretty sure I saw some comments in the discussion about sequence
> > naming that constraints are per table and giving them a schema name
> > makes no sense. The table they are for has the schema name in it.
>
> Yeah. We had that discussion at some point during the 7.3 development
> cycle, and concluded we liked table-local naming for constraints better
> than the SQL spec's global constraint names.
>
> SET CONSTRAINTS still does what it used to do, which is to alter the
> behavior of all constraints with the given name. We should probably
> expand the syntax so that a particular table name can be mentioned.
Is this a TODO?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
