From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dan Colish <dcolish(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SET CONSTRAINTS todo |
Date: | 2010-06-04 04:45:39 |
Message-ID: | 24971.1275626739@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dan Colish <dcolish(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I wanted to work on this todo item and I have a few questions about
> the semantics of it. Essentially, it is not possible to have more than
> one relname for a constraint,
That is per SQL spec: SQL92 10.6 syntax rule 2 saith
2) The <qualified identifier> of <constraint name> shall be differ-
ent from the <qualified identifier> of the <constraint name> of
any other constraint defined in the same schema.
I believe we are already laxer than the spec, because we don't enforce
that restriction except for index-based constraints. I'm not terribly
excited about trying to make it weaker yet.
> Is the intention of the todo to allow the user to specify a tablename
> which limits the search path to that table's schema or is the feature to
> extend constraints to allow per table naming.
I think the TODO item you're looking at is just about how narrowly you
can specify the target(s) of a SET CONSTRAINTS command. It's not meant
to say anything about what constraint names can be created in the first
place.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-04 04:57:13 | Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-06-04 04:17:38 | Re: [PATCH] Fix leaky VIEWs for RLS |