Re: set constraints docs page

"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> I object to creating gratuitous incompatibilities with the SQL standard,
>> which will obstruct legitimate features down the road. The SQL standard
>> says it is <schema>.<constraint>.

> Is there a case for enforcing uniqueness on constraint names, then?

Other than "SQL92 says so"? Very little. This seems to me to be a
design error in the spec. Per-table constraint names are easier to
work with --- if they're global across a schema then you have a serious
problem avoiding collisions.

The spec does have a notion of "assertions", which are constraints not
tied to any specific table; for those I suppose you need a
schema-wide namespace. I do not foresee us supporting such things
anytime soon though.

regards, tom lane