Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?

From: "Richard Broersma" <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?
Date: 2008-09-03 00:07:14
Message-ID: 396486430809021707x45d34935lab11fc8722f42a23@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:

> The problem is that you have to rerun the query to verify that the CHECK
> condition still holds, whenever the table that the CHECK clause is
> checking changes. This is rather problematic, because we'd need to make
> the system aware of such reverse dependencies.

Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense.

--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.

Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-03 00:26:04 Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?
Previous Message Matthew Wilson 2008-09-03 00:02:01 Re: Foreign Key normalization question