Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Richard Broersma
Тема Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?
Дата
Msg-id 396486430809021530o45a092bdt68f114b7e2fb82c8@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Список pgsql-general
I am curious if the motivation is still valid for intentionally
omitting check sub-queries. (what was the motivation to begin with?)

Since we can effectively work around this limitation by doing the same
thing with a function in a CHECK constraint, why would we want to
prevent anyone from using the standard syntax for achieving the same
effect?


As a side point, for consistency I think that the CREATE ASSERTION
feature should have the same comments as a check() sub-query, since it
is very similar in purpose.


http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/unsupported-features-sql-standard.html
F671 | Enhanced integrity management | Sub queries in CHECK |
intentionally omitted

--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.

Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alex Vinogradovs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: plpgsql returning resultset
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?