Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype
Date: 2013-11-15 05:47:32
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCHWc9-mY==b5+qmKOxAneFQwjSZf3y88_T=sE5-6PA7A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

+1

interesting feature

Pavel

2013/11/15 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>

> Various places in the constraint checking code say something like, if we
> ever implement assertions, here is where it should go. I've been
> fiddling with filling in those gaps for some time now, and the other day
> I noticed, hey, this actually kind of works, so here it is. Let's see
> whether this architecture is sound.
>
> A constraint trigger performs the actual checking. For the
> implementation of the trigger, I've used some SPI hacking for now; that
> could probably be refined. The attached patch has documentation, tests,
> psql support. Missing pieces are pg_dump support, dependency
> management, and permission checking (the latter marked in the code).
>
> This is not a performance feature. It's for things like, this table
> should have at most 10 rows, or all the values in this table must be
> bigger than all the values in that other table. It's a bit esoteric,
> but it comes up again and again.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2013-11-15 06:12:15 Re: init_sequence spill to hash table
Previous Message David Rowley 2013-11-15 05:47:18 Re: init_sequence spill to hash table