> Actually, I realized that in the face of multiple inheritance, dynamically
> generated constraint names still fail with our current default naming
> scheme. What happens when two tables both have a $1 and then you inherit
> from both of them, at this point it's pretty much too late to rename the
> constraint on one of the parents and I think right now the constraints get
> named $1 and $2. Either, we should punt, and make it so they both end up
> $1, or perhaps we should change $1 to something like <table>_$1 where
> table is the table name of the table on which the constraint was defined.
> So if you have table1 with an unnamed constraint, it and all of its
> children would see the constraint as table1_$1.
Even if we implemented this, it wouldn't fix the problem of duplicated user
specified constraint names under multiple inheritance. It seems a many-many
pg_constraint table it the only clean solution...
Chris
