----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>; "Hackers"
<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] set constraints docs page
> Christopher Kings-Lynne writes:
>
> > > > It's a constraint name. IIRC, it happens to affect all such named
> > > > constraints currently. We should probably allow
<tablename>.<constraint>
> > > > (and <schema>.<tablename>.<constraint>) as well. Too late for 7.4,
but
> > > > this can happen for 7.5 if there aren't any objections.
> > >
> > > I object.
> >
> > Thanks for the helpful objection. To what do you object specifically
and
> > why?
>
> I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard,
> which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard
> says it is <schema>.<constraint>.
>
Is there a case for enforcing uniqueness on constraint names, then?
andrew