Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeah, exactly. I think that the current tradeoff is just fine. > If you want SQL-standard behavior, pick SQL-standard constraint > names, and there you are. I see that as the crux if it -- the current implementation *allows* standard-conforming behavior, even though it doesn't *enforce* conforming naming. The proposed alternative does not allow standard-conforming behavior. If you're going to use something which is PostgreSQL-specific, you may as well write your own views or use the "native" tables and views directly. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
