From: | Chris Angelico <rosuav(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DEFERRABLE NOT NULL constraint |
Date: | 2013-02-06 11:56:31 |
Message-ID: | CAPTjJmr7m_Vzs9Hq6Jt=OoVxq0zuDkFmkgJ_1ZO8ZF1ozqHR0g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Bèrto ëd Sèra <berto(dot)d(dot)sera(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi
>
>> I still don't see how that's any better than a stored procedure that
>> directly does the INSERT. You can conceal the code every bit as
>> easily.
>
> Guys I DO NOT write the customers' security guidelines. I get asked to
> produce a design in which "party X will make plain INSERTs and ignore
> the very existence of business rules". Can I do it in PG, No. Can I
> rewrite the guidelines? No. Hence, PG is not used. Full stop.
Sometimes you just have to tell the customer that his/her requirements
are impossible to plausibly implement. If you get into a taxi and ask
to be driven to New Zealand within the hour, no amount of begging will
get you what you want.
ChrisA
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2013-02-06 12:06:08 | Re: function for setting/getting same timestamp during whole transaction |
Previous Message | Bèrto ëd Sèra | 2013-02-06 11:36:03 | Re: DEFERRABLE NOT NULL constraint |