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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?
Date: 2008-09-02 23:22:31
Message-ID: 8018.1220397751@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> My question is not why don't we allow subqueries in CHECK, my question
> is why do we allow stable/volatile functions?

Historically we've allowed it, and it's not clear what we'd buy by
changing that, other than breaking existing applications whose authors
forgot to mark their functions immutable. If there were something we
could usefully do by checking the mutability status of the condition,
then it would be worth breaking compatibility here...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2008-09-02 23:31:25 Re: Subqueries in Check() -- Still Intentionally Omitted?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-09-02 23:14:57 Re: Index non-usage problem in 8.2.9