2013/1/28 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2013/1/28 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>> ... The current patch provides sufficient
>>> information to uniquely identify a table constraint, but not so much
>>> domain constraints. Should we fix that? I think it'd be legitimate
>>> to re-use SCHEMA_NAME for domain schema, but we'd need a new nonstandard
>>> field DOMAIN_NAME (or maybe better DATATYPE_NAME) if we want to fix it.
>>> Do we want to add that now?
>
>> should be for me.
>
>> one question - what do you thing about marking proprietary field with
>> some prefix - like PG_DOMAIN_NAME ?
>
> Don't particularly see the point of that. It seems quite unlikely that
> the ISO committee would invent a field with the same name and a
> conflicting definition. Anyway, these names aren't going to be exposed
> in any non "proprietary" interfaces AFAICS. Surely we don't, for
> instance, need to call the postgres_ext.h macro PG_DIAG_PG_DOMAIN_NAME.
ok
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
