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
>
>
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 |