From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Partitioning documentation example |
Date: | 2008-01-05 19:01:16 |
Message-ID: | 200801051901.m05J1GR27373@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Because my EXECUTE example didn't work I have created a new example
> > using date_trunc(), which I think is less error-prone than the
> > comparisons done in the original example:
>
> This is not an improvement either. You can't represent the check
> constraints that way (at least not if you want the planner to do
> constraint exclusion with them) and I don't think it's "less
> error-prone" to have a different representation in the trigger than
> you have in the constraints.
I see, so date_trunc() can't be used for constraint exclusion in the
CHECK constraint, and the trigger should match; makes sense.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc Mamin | 2008-01-07 11:28:22 | advisory locks: documentation hint and feature request |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-05 18:08:54 | Re: Partitioning documentation example |