Re: ENABLE/DISABLE CONSTRAINT NAME

On 9/3/13 3:13 AM, wangshuo(at)highgo(dot)com(dot)cn wrote:
> Drop/build and disable/enable constraint has no fundamental difference,
> and could achieve the same purpose.What I do also more convenient for
> the user.
> Recording the disabled constraints is easier than recoding all the
> constrains.

Note that other schema objects can depend on the existence of
constraints. For example, the validity of a view might depend on the
existence of a primary key constraint. What would you do with the view
if the primary key constraint is temporarily disabled?

> What's more, a lot of people ever asked about turing off constraint and
> The sql2008 support this.So I think it's necessary in some ways.

I don't see this in the SQL standard. There is [NOT] ENFORCED, but
that's something different. Implementing that instead might actually
address the above concern.