From: | "Richard Broersma" <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted? |
Date: | 2008-09-02 22:30:58 |
Message-ID: | 396486430809021530o45a092bdt68f114b7e2fb82c8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I am curious if the motivation is still valid for intentionally
omitting check sub-queries. (what was the motivation to begin with?)
Since we can effectively work around this limitation by doing the same
thing with a function in a CHECK constraint, why would we want to
prevent anyone from using the standard syntax for achieving the same
effect?
As a side point, for consistency I think that the CREATE ASSERTION
feature should have the same comments as a check() sub-query, since it
is very similar in purpose.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/unsupported-features-sql-standard.html
F671 | Enhanced integrity management | Sub queries in CHECK |
intentionally omitted
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joseph S | 2008-09-02 22:31:35 | Index non-usage problem in 8.2.9 |
Previous Message | D. Dante Lorenso | 2008-09-02 21:35:25 | Re: Foreign Key normalization question |