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
kind
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 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 nicely,
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 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
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.
