| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] CHECK constraints inconsistencies |
| Date: | 2004-03-02 01:28:02 |
| Message-ID: | 26697.1078190882@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> writes:
> In both cases, the CHECK constraint uses a function that is stable or
> volatile. It was suggested that functions used in CHECK constraints be
> restricted to immutable,
This seems reasonable to me. I'm a bit surprised we do not have such a
check already.
Of course, a user could easily get into the sort of situation you
describe anyway, just by lying about the volatility labeling of a
user-defined function. But at least we could say it was his fault
then ;-)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-03-02 01:43:59 | Re: [HACKERS] CHECK constraints inconsistencies |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2004-03-02 00:53:40 | CHECK constraints inconsistencies |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-02 01:30:39 | Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-02 01:22:37 | Re: Tablespaces |