| From: | Lætitia Avrot <laetitia(dot)avrot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | bpd0018(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | vik(dot)fearing(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Constraint documentation |
| Date: | 2018-06-26 07:49:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAB_COdjmb812b23MRDaadWkRN5iBGK1eMP89yD5haDgK_0Usnw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Thanks a lot. I did the modification. It's in the patch enclosed.
Have a nice day,
Lætitia
Le mar. 26 juin 2018 à 01:42, Brad DeJong <bpd0018(at)gmail(dot)com> a écrit :
> On 25/06/18 17:45, Lætitia Avrot wrote:
> > + <note>
> > + <para>
> > + Check constraint are not designed to enforce business rules across
> tables.
> > + Avoid using check constraints with function accessing other tables
> and
>
> Subject/verb agreement - either "A check constraint is ..." or "Check
> constraints are ..." would be appropriate.
>
--
*Think! Do you really need to print this email ? *
*There is no Planet B.*
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| check_constraint_accross_table_note_v3.patch | text/x-patch | 902 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2018-06-26 07:54:16 | Re: partition tree inspection functions |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-06-26 07:37:28 | Re: partition tree inspection functions |