2012/12/29 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
>> > Having just constraint_schema and constraint_name feels horribly wrong
>> > as the definition of a constraint also includes a pg_class oid.
>>
>> but then TABLE_NAME and TABLE_SCHEMA will be defined.
>
> How are you going to look up the constraint? Using constraint_schema,
> table_name, and constraint_name? Or table_schema, table_name and
> constraint_name? When do you use constraint_schema instead of
> table_schema?
>
> None of those options is exactly clear or understandable...
probably there will be situation when TABLE_SCHEMA and
CONSTRAINT_SCHEMA same values
Hypothetically - if we define CONSTRAINT_TABLE - what is difference
from TABLE_NAME ?
Pavel
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
