| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dane Foster <studdugie(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Check constraints and function volatility categories |
| Date: | 2016-02-01 21:11:10 |
| Message-ID: | 56AFC9EE.8070507@aklaver.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 02/01/2016 12:52 PM, Dane Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
> <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
> As an example of where this leads see:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7224.1452275604@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> Thanks for the heads up. The good news is all machine access to the
> data will be via functions and views so I can inline the constraint in
> the right places. In other news, this sucks! I have no idea what it
I could see moving your constraint into a per row trigger.
> would take to implement a more flexible constraint mechanism where these
> types of dependencies can be expressed declaratively but it would be
> great if someone w/ the know-how did. As is evident by the fact that I
> wasn't the only one to not realize the rabbit hole I was heading down,
> it would be a useful feature.
>
> As always thanks for setting me straight,
>
> Dane
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-02-01 21:23:41 | Re: Check constraints and function volatility categories |
| Previous Message | cchee-ob | 2016-02-01 21:07:54 | BDR error trying to replay a invalid statement |