Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1078194300.39213.56.camel@jester обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies (Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>) |
Ответы |
Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: