Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeff Davis
Тема Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?
Дата
Msg-id 1220398574.10936.43.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-general
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 19:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> > My question is not why don't we allow subqueries in CHECK, my question
> > is why do we allow stable/volatile functions?
>
> Historically we've allowed it, and it's not clear what we'd buy by
> changing that, other than breaking existing applications whose authors
> forgot to mark their functions immutable.  If there were something we
> could usefully do by checking the mutability status of the condition,
> then it would be worth breaking compatibility here...
>

I suppose this means that we're already treating any CHECK constraint as
immutable anyway, e.g. for constraint_exclusion?

Regards,
    Jeff Davis




В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jeff Davis
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?
Следующее
От: Matthew Wilson
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Foreign Key normalization question