| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Mutable CHECK constraints? |
| Date: | 2023-01-24 06:38:09 |
| Message-ID: | 2189688.1674542289@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> We throw an error if the expression in a CREATE INDEX statement is not IMMUTABLE.
> But while the documentation notes that expressions in CHECK constraints are not
> to be immutable, we don't enforce that. Why don't we call something like
> CheckMutability inside cookConstraint? Sure, that wouldn't catch all abuse,
> but it would be better than nothing.
> There is of course the worry of breaking upgrade for unsafe constraints, but is
> there any other reason not to enforce immutability?
Yeah, that's exactly it, it's a historical exemption for compatibility
reasons. There are discussions about this in the archives, if memory
serves ... but I'm too tired to go digging.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-24 06:57:56 | Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2023-01-24 06:17:13 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |