Re: SET CONSTRAINTS not schema-aware

from the prelim sql92 standard:

Syntax Rules
        1) If a <constraint name definition> is contained in a <schema 
def-           inition>, and if the <constraint name> contains a <schema 
name>,           then that <schema name> shall be the same as the specified or           implicit <schema name> of the
containing<schema definition>.
 
        2) The <qualified identifier> of <constraint name> shall be 
differ-           ent from the <qualified identifier> of the <constraint name> 
of           any other constraint defined in the same schema.

Further along, talking about drop schema, it says:

4) Let A be the <constraint name> of any assertion contained in           S. The following <drop assertion statement>
iseffectively 
 
exe-           cuted:
             DROP ASSERTION A

S is the schema, so it would appear they do mean that constraints are 
"contained" so to speak by a schema.

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> 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.
> 
>