Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies

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@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.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.