On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 2:50 PM Vik Fearing <v...@postgresfriends.org> wrote:
> On 9/5/23 19:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2023-Sep-05, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Looking now at what to do for CHECK_CONSTRAINTS with domain constraints, > > I admit I'm completely confused about what this view is supposed to > > show. Currently, we show the constraint name and a definition like > > "CHECK (column IS NOT NULL)". But since the table name is not given, it > > is not possible to know to what table the column name refers to. For > > domains, we could show "CHECK (VALUE IS NOT NULL)" but again with no > > indication of what domain it applies to, or anything at all that would > > make this useful in any way whatsoever. > > Constraint names are supposed to be unique per schema[1] so the view > contains the minimum required information to identify the constraint. > I'm presuming that the view constraint_column_usage [1] is an integral part of all this though I haven't taken the time to figure out exactly how we are implementing it today. I'm not all that for either A or B since the status quo seems workable. Though ideally if the system has unique names per schema then everything should just work - having the views produce duplicated information (as opposed to nothing) if they are used when the DBA doesn't enforce the standard's requirements seems plausible. David J. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/infoschema-constraint-column-usage.html
