On 2025-Apr-21, Tom Lane wrote:
> I experimented with the attached, which approximates "add some digits
> to the name used for the parent constraint". (We could refactor
> ChooseConstraintName if we wanted a less approximate version of that
> rule, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.)
This seems a better implementation of the idea than what I had in mind.
For my part, please feel free to go ahead with this. (I can focus on
the remaining problems with self-referencing FKs ... sigh)
> The extent to which these derived names leak out to the user, as
> illustrated by the regression test changes, makes me even less happy
> about the fact that \d doesn't show them. I think we really ought
> to try to find a way to not need these entries. But that is clearly
> not v18 material at this point.
Well, for starters we could change psql to show the hidden constraint
names. Since this appears to be a problem for users, maybe even change
\d+ to show them in backbranches. For the longer term (19) I can try to
work on reimplementing things so that these names don't appear anywhere
and are more collision-resistant (though frankly I would prefer to spend
my time on REPACK and column reordering)
> > I'd probably not change this in versions 13 and 14 at all in any case,
> > because the code is too different. I'm unsure whether this is enough of
> > a bug to consider backpatching to 15-17; maybe we should just change 18
> > at this point, since I haven't heard of a user complaining about this.
>
> Kirill's complaint isn't that?
I didn't see it as one as first, but I reread his OP and now I agree
that it is.
FWIW I've been migrating my main email address to a new domain. Finally
got sick of noip.com.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La vida es para el que se aventura"
