| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, <pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Uniqueness of rule, constraint, and trigger names |
| Date: | 2002-03-04 22:51:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20020304145040.R81357-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> For constraints, we'd need to change the code to be more careful to
> >> generate unique names for unnamed constraints. That doesn't seem
>
> > Another question would be what to do with inherited constraints that
> > conflict in multiple inheritance cases. It'd probably be safe to rename
> > those on the child table to be unique,
>
> I'd just raise an error, I think, unless perhaps the constraints are
> identical (for some definition of identical). We don't allow
> conflicting column definitions to be inherited, so why constraints?
Good point. That's probably better than autorenaming them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-04 22:52:26 | Planned cleanups in attribute parsing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-04 22:18:32 | Re: Uniqueness of rule, constraint, and trigger names |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-04 22:58:22 | Re: CREATE FUNCTION and LANGUAGE 'C' |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-04 22:18:32 | Re: Uniqueness of rule, constraint, and trigger names |