Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
> 
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> SET CONSTRAINTS still does what it used to do, which is to alter the
> > >> behavior of all constraints with the given name.  We should probably
> > >> expand the syntax so that a particular table name can be mentioned.
> >
> > > Is this a TODO?
> >
> > Nobody objected to my statement, so I guess so ...
> 
> I just hate to see us breaking the SQL standard for no technical reason.

Does it actually break the standard of just extend it.  I don't see any
problem with extending it.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073