Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We have discussed changing the default names of FK constraints
>> before. I have no problem with doing something like the above --- any
>> objection out there?
> I think it's a good idea. It will also make the error messages of the
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think this is only an issue when the user relies on postgres to
> > choose a constraint name automatically. Seems like a reasonable
> > approach would be to have postgres choose a name for the constraint
> > that happens to be unique in the
Kyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this is only an issue when the user relies on postgres to choose
> a constraint name automatically. Seems like a reasonable approach would
> be to have postgres choose a name for the constraint that happens to be
> unique in the schema (like tablename_
Tom Lane wrote:
Kyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The problem is, the constraint names ($1,
$2, etc.) are not unique so I don't know how to join the third query
into the fourth.
Hmm, this is messy :-(. The SQL spec requires constraint names to be
unique within a schema
Kyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to get my application to deduce foreign key relationships
> automatically so it can perform appropriate joins for the user. I'm new
> to information_schema and having problems getting what I want.
> ...
> I can determine all the primary key fields ni
I'm trying to get my application to deduce foreign key relationships
automatically so it can perform appropriate joins for the user. I'm new
to information_schema and having problems getting what I want. Here is
a test script to be run on a database called "test."
-
