| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <elein(at)varlena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RI Constraint display |
| Date: | 2002-12-31 04:26:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20021230202302.F55675-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, elein wrote:
>
> Then this is a distinction between the trigger name and
> the constraint name? The trigger name is RI_ConstraintTrigger_437278
> (or some such oid). The trigger is the implementation of the constraint
> so the trigger name is what I had expected to see.
There are three triggers for the constraint though. It needs a name
separate from those of the triggers (or it could pick one of the triggers
to name it after, but that seems just as confusing to me).
> Almost all of the system generated names, sequences, triggers, etc,
> have constructed names. $n for constrain names seems like an anomaly.
I think it's been that way for check constraints for a long time unless I
remember incorrectly. When the change was made to actually name the
constraint (rather than naming them all unnamed) I figure the current
naming convention was carried across.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-31 04:40:18 | Re: RI Constraint display |
| Previous Message | David Busby | 2002-12-31 04:10:24 | Trigger to spawn process? |