Re: SQL:2011 application time
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 58b6687fe9de002e4c862a412719e4f918bad987.camel@j-davis.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SQL:2011 application time (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: SQL:2011 application time
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 12:11 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Some of these issues might be design flaws in the underlying > mechanisms, > like range types and exclusion constraints. Like, if you're supposed > to > use this for scheduling but you can use empty ranges to bypass > exclusion > constraints, how is one supposed to use this? An empty range does not "bypass" the an exclusion constraint. The exclusion constraint has a documented meaning and it's enforced. Of course there are situations where an empty range doesn't make a lot of sense. For many domains zero doesn't make any sense, either. Consider receiving an email saying "thank you for purchasing 0 widgets!". Check constraints seem like a reasonable way to prevent those kinds of problems. Regards, Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: