Re: Constraint documentation

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Patrick Francelle <patrick(at)francelle(dot)name>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pantelis Theodosiou <ypercube(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lætitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Brad DeJong <bpd0018(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Constraint documentation
Date: 2018-11-26 15:43:20
Message-ID: 20181126154320.5h3xuatfzgmzmcgp@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I have pushed this.

On 2018-Nov-26, David Fetter wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:16:11PM +0100, Patrick Francelle wrote:
>
> > To address your remark, I added a small message in the CREATE TABLE
> > reference page to be more explicit about the topic, so that it would be
> > a warning for the users reading the section. And then a reference to the
> > CHECK constraint page where the full explanation is to be located.
> >
> > That way, the caveat is mentioned in both pages, but the full
> > explanation is located only on a single page.

That was a good idea, but your third sentence repeated what was being
said in the first sentence in the same paragraph. I edited that to put
the cross-reference next to the first sentence instead.

> I believe that features F671 (subqueries in CHECK constraints) and
> possibly F673 (reads SQL-data routine invocations in CHECK
> constraints) from the standard should be referred to here.
>
> We haven't implemented either one of them, but we might some day.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think we put many feature
references in the docs. I suppose we can edit it when we implement
F671 and F673. Or maybe you want to submit a followup patch. It didn't
seem worth blocking this patch for your proposed change (particularly
since Lætitia seems to have given up on it already).

Thanks,

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2018-11-26 15:52:08 Re: dsa_allocate() faliure
Previous Message Jakub Glapa 2018-11-26 15:38:35 Re: dsa_allocate() faliure