| From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Uniqueness of rule, constraint, and trigger names |
| Date: | 2002-03-04 23:05:07 |
| Message-ID: | web-816616@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Tom,
> Currently we have a rather confusing mismash of behaviors for the
> names
> of rules, constraints, and triggers. I'd like to unify the rules
> so that these objects all have the same naming behavior; and the only
> behavior that makes sense to me now is that of triggers.
I agree.
Regarding prioritization: As a heavy user of constraints and triggers,
on two commercial projects, I have yet to have constraint names
overlap. What's more of a problem for me is those pesky <unnamed>
constraints.
-Josh Berkus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Doug McNaught | 2002-03-05 00:04:45 | Re: JDBC: java.sql.SQLException: results returned |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-04 22:52:26 | Planned cleanups in attribute parsing |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-04 23:16:33 | Re: Changing sequence cache |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-04 23:03:16 | Re: [INTERFACES] PL/pgSQL Syntax Problem |