From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFC: Generating useful names for foreign keys and checks |
Date: | 2002-04-16 02:58:13 |
Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOEECGCCAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Actually I'm in favor of it. I have a proposal outstanding to require
> constraints to have names that are unique per-table, for consistency
> with triggers (already are that way) and rules (will become that way,
> rather than having globally unique names as now). AFAIR the only
> significant concern was making sure that the system wouldn't generate
> duplicate constraint names by default.
Yeah, that's what's giving me pain - foreign key names are generated in the
rewriter or something somewhere, so I'm not sure exactly what I have access
to for checking duplicates...
The other interesting issue is the the little suffix we append is just in
the name. ie. someone can create an index called '_pkey' and cause
confusion.
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-16 02:58:51 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-16 02:46:23 | Re: ANSI Compliant Inserts |