Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?

From: Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: stanb(at)panix(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?
Date: 2019-09-20 10:52:00
Message-ID: CAKqnccjQUE5V-P+4BCg34UFoxq0=KNQLdQD+6qcr3ocn_wre=g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

I see that you've already been pointed at citext, but I don't think a CHECK
constraint has been mentioned. In case it hasn't, what about something like
this?

ADD CONSTRAINT check_activity_status
CHECK (activity_status = 'ACTIVE' OR activity_status = 'INACTIVE');

I'm kind of allergic to ENUM...maybe that's just me. But since you're
considering it, maybe it's the perfect time to consider all of your
options. Such as a linked lookup table of defined allowed values (feels
silly with two values), a domain (not entirely fit to purpose), or the
CHECK constraint above. And, yeah, if it's only ever ACTIVE or INACTIVE,
I'd normally make a Boolean named something like active, as Adrian Klaver
mentioned. That's easy to reason about, and it makes it unambiguous that
there are two and only two possible states..

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message stan 2019-09-20 11:02:58 Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?
Previous Message stan 2019-09-20 10:30:31 Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?