| From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies |
| Date: | 2004-03-02 02:25:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1078194300.39213.56.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 20:43, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 20:28:02 -0500,
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> writes:
> > > In both cases, the CHECK constraint uses a function that is stable or
> > > volatile. It was suggested that functions used in CHECK constraints be
> > > restricted to immutable,
> >
> > This seems reasonable to me. I'm a bit surprised we do not have such a
> > check already.
>
> There may be times you want to do this. For example you may want a timestamp
> to be in the past. In this case as long as it was in the past when the
Agreed that this is useful behaviour, but a trigger is usually a better
mechanism for confirming such data as you really only want to check it
when the value is changed.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-02 03:36:38 | Re: [HACKERS] CHECK constraints inconsistencies |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-03-02 01:43:59 | Re: [HACKERS] CHECK constraints inconsistencies |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-03-02 03:08:29 | 7.3.6 bundled ... |
| Previous Message | Curt Sampson | 2004-03-02 01:52:52 | Re: Check Constraints and pg_dump |