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
