Re: rename constraint behavior for duplicate names?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: allanvv(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: rename constraint behavior for duplicate names?
Date: 2005-09-01 21:55:14
Message-ID: 7002.1125611714@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Allan Wang <allanvv(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Alright, I see why the checks are still needed. The unique index should
> be on relname, conname right? Also looking into DROP CONSTRAINT's code,
> it gives a notice about "multiple constraint names dropped" when
> RemoveRelConstraints(rel, conname) returns > 1. This check isn't needed
> anymore right? Also RemoveRelConstraints can be simplified to assume
> only one row will need removing, and be turned into a void function?

Not unless you want to break the "quiet" option for ATExecDropConstraint.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Allan Wang 2005-09-01 22:04:23 Re: rename constraint behavior for duplicate names?
Previous Message Allan Wang 2005-09-01 21:52:20 Re: rename constraint behavior for duplicate names?