Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> >> SET CONSTRAINTS doesn't allow you to schema-qualify a constraint name.
>
> > I am pretty sure I saw some comments in the discussion about sequence
> > naming that constraints are per table and giving them a schema name
> > makes no sense. The table they are for has the schema name in it.
>
> Yeah. We had that discussion at some point during the 7.3 development
> cycle, and concluded we liked table-local naming for constraints better
> than the SQL spec's global constraint names.
>
> SET CONSTRAINTS still does what it used to do, which is to alter the
> behavior of all constraints with the given name. We should probably
> expand the syntax so that a particular table name can be mentioned.

Is this a TODO?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073