Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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