On 02/06/2013 13:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> That's good as far as it goes, but there's another major reason for
> wanting the capability. There are cases where, due to dirty
> converted data or late recognition of the need for a constraint
> there is existing data which violates the constraint. Being able
> to add a constraint to protect against creating additional bad data
> before all the existing problems are cleaned up can be valuable.
Yeah, that's a valid use case.
Anyway, you seem to know more about this than I do and your English is
better, so I'll leave it up to you. I just hope we can get this change
into the next minor release so I'd be the last person to suffer from the
misinformation that's currently in the documentation.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja