Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> If I read the spec correctly, table constraint names are supposed to be
> unique across a schema.
That's what the spec says, but I doubt we should enforce it. For one
thing, what do you do with inherited constraints? Invent a random name
for them? No thanks. The absolute limit of what I'd accept is
constraint name unique for a given table ... and even that seems like
an unnecessary restriction.
>> I was just fiddling around with trying to implement the 'DROP CONSTRAINT'
>> code (it's quite hard - don't wait up for me!) and it would seem to be a bad
>> thing that it's possible to have two constraints with the same name in a
>> table.
A reasonable interpretation of DROP CONSTRAINT "foo" is to drop *all*
constraints named "foo" on the target table.
regards, tom lane
