From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Struck <struck(dot)d(at)retrovirology(dot)lu> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: abnormal behaviour of a CHECK CONSTRAINT with a regular |
Date: | 2004-02-10 16:10:13 |
Message-ID: | 20040210080705.W20734@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Daniel Struck wrote:
> retrovirology=# INSERT INTO test_reg1 (date_user) VALUES ('111.1999');
> ERROR: invalid input syntax for type date: "111.1999"
> CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "function_test_reg1" line 8 at assignment
> retrovirology=# INSERT INTO test_reg1 (date_user) VALUES ('11:1999');
> ERROR: invalid input syntax for type date: "15.11:1999"
> CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "function_test_reg1" line 12 at assignment
> retrovirology=#
>
> This values do pass NOW the CHECK CONSTRAINT ???? and are injected in
> the trigger function. Normally the trigger shouldn't m have an influence
> an the CHECK CONSTRAINT.
Wrong order. Before triggers happen before the table check constraint is
checked (since the triggers can change the data). IIRC, you can currently
have a constraint that is checked before that currently by making the
column type be a domain that has the constraint since the value gets
coerced to the column type (and checked) when making the row value for the
trigger.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-02-10 16:12:39 | Re: [BUGS] Probably a security bug in PostgreSQL rule system |
Previous Message | Daniel Struck | 2004-02-10 16:08:58 | Re: abnormal behaviour of a CHECK CONSTRAINT with a regular |