Yes, renaming the trigger does in fact work. Any thoughts on the theory of this behavior? i.e. is this ANSI compliant? Or should there be a mechanism in place that guarantees the FK-enforcement trigger runs after all others?
Hmm, it doesn't conform to the SQL standard, which clarifies that with NOTE 31, p.66 in 4.17.2 though doesn't specifically mention triggers.
We claim conformance to the standard on this.
You can change the name of the constraint that implements the FKs on the DDL but can't change the names of the underlying triggers except by doing that directly, which doesn't seem that useful.
Should we have a parameter to define precedence of RI checks? We could hoik out the triggers and execute them last, or leave them as they are, depending upon the setting.
