Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: timetz range check issue

From: "Usama Dar" <munir(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Andrew Chernow" <ac(at)esilo(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers list" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: timetz range check issue
Date: 2007-12-25 16:57:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Dec 22, 2007 7:40 PM, Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> wrote:

>  >Tom Lane wrote:
>  >>range-checks are present only where needed for the backend to defend
> itself
> Survival is very important, but so is maintaining data integrity.  IMHO,
> data
> validation should be as consistent as possible.  If the backend refuses
> data on
> one hand but allows it on the other, confusion sets in.  I realize that
> binary
> input can't always be 100% validated, but a best effort is good form.


Usama Munir Dar
Consultant Architect
Cell:+92 321 5020666
Skype: usamadar

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: imadDate: 2007-12-25 17:12:23
Subject: Re: Binary data type with other output method
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2007-12-25 16:10:25
Subject: Re: Binary data type with other output method

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group