This topic has been translated from a Chinese forum by GPT and might contain errors.

Original topic: Support TABLE_NAME in CHECK_CONSTRAINTS

| username: ShawnYan

Requirement Feedback
Please clearly and accurately describe the problem scenario, desired behavior, and background information to help the product team follow up on the requirement in a timely manner.
[Problem Scenario Involved in the Requirement]

[Expected Behavior of the Requirement]
It is recommended to add a TABLE_NAME column, which would make the CHECK_CONSTRAINTS table more meaningful.

[Alternative Solutions for the Requirement]

[Background Information]
For example, which users will benefit from this, and some usage scenarios. Any API design, model, or diagram would be more helpful.

For detailed description, please see the issue:

| username: ShawnYan | Original post link



| username: ShawnYan | Original post link

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.