| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted? |
| Date: | 2008-09-02 23:36:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1220398574.10936.43.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 19:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Wilson | 2008-09-03 00:02:01 | Re: Foreign Key normalization question |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-09-02 23:31:25 | Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted? |