On Jun 24, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Chris Hilton wrote:
>> Yes, UNIQUE constraints may have a name, but primary keys do not.
> Sorry to belabor the point, but what exactly do you mean here? The
> aforementioned create table syntax shows:
> [CONSTRAINT [symbol]] PRIMARY KEY
D'oh! I just assumed a PK would have no name. I stand corrected.
> As valid and basically identical to the foreign key and unique
> constraints. I guess there's some question as to how useful the PK name
> is, though, which will probably come up more in a soon-to-be-sent email
> from me (oooh, foreshadowing).
Having been English literature major, I, for one, appreciate your
I certainly don't see any benefit in naming the PK constraint. Of
course, I don't name anything in a schema that I don't have to
(indexes, constraints, etc.). I'm lazy, I guess. Viva, lzy!