| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Constraints & pg_dump |
| Date: | 2004-03-17 16:53:32 |
| Message-ID: | 200403170853.32017.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> Is it? Our present handling of CHECK constraints cannot reasonably be
> thought to support anything but row-local constraints. If they're using
> a function to make an end-run around the check that prohibits subselects
> in CHECK constraints, then their problems are much more serious than
> whether pg_dump dumps the database in an order that manages to avoid
> failure. That kind of constraint just plain does not work, because it
> won't get rechecked when the implicitly referenced rows change.
Hmmm ... damn, you're correct. It does seem, philosophically, like that is
the appropriate topic for a constraint. However, I can see how it would be
difficult to implement as one ....
What about table-level check constraints? Seems like one of those should be
able to be used to check a vertical assertion within a table. Or do we need
SQL ASSERTION for this?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Renê Salomão | 2004-03-17 16:54:03 | unsubscribe pgsql-docs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-17 16:36:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |