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..
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? |