On 2015-04-29 15:31:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> I still think that constraints should never be named in the syntax. > > > > I guess I don't see a particular problem with that..? Perhaps I'm > > missing something, but if there's multiple ways for something to > > conflict, it might be nice to be able to differentiate between them? > > Then again, I'm not sure if that's what the intent here is. > > So, with unique indexes, people can create an index concurrently, then > drop the old index concurrently, and nothing breaks. I don't think we > have a similar capacity for constraints at the moment, but we should. > When somebody does that dance, the object names change, but all of the > DML keeps working. That's a property I'd like to preserve.
On the other hand it's way more convenient to specify a single constraint name than several columns and a predicate. I'm pretty sure there's situations where I a) rather live with a smaller chance of error during a replacement of the constraint b) if we get concurrently replaceable constraints the naming should be doable too. I don't see your argument strong enough to argue against allowing this *as an alternative*. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers