Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware

OK, added to TODO:

Allow SET CONSTRAINTS to be qualified by schema/table

Peter, I assume SET CONSTRAINTS can't control a domain's constraints ---
it isn't actually a data object in the transaction. Am I right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > Right. In SQL92 constraint names have to be unique within the table's
> > schema. Postgres allows two different tables to have similarly-named
> > constraints, and that difference is the root of the issue.
>
> But that should not prevent us from assigning an explicit schema to each
> constraint, as we in fact currently do. This issue is a bit more tricky
> than it seems. For example, constraints may also belong to a domain, so
> even if we allowed SET CONSTRAINTS a.b.c it is still not clear that "b" is
> a table.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>

--
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