On 10.06.22 05:47, David Rowley wrote:
>> I think this should be referring to constraint name, not an index name.
> Can you explain why you think that?
If you wanted to specify this feature in the SQL standard (I'm not
proposing that, but it seems plausible), then you need to deal in terms
of constraints, not indexes. Maybe referring to an index directly could
be a backup option if desired, but I don't see why that would be
necessary, since you can easily create a real constraint on top of an index.
