From: | Darren Ferguson <darren(at)crystalballinc(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Are globally defined constants possible at all ? |
Date: | 2002-06-07 21:49:41 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.10206071748430.16196-100000@thread.crystalballinc.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Check can be used in the following way
status VARCHAR(32) DEFAULT 'new' NOT NULL
CHECK(status IN ('new','read','deleted')),
HTH
Darren Ferguson
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 02:36:35PM -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote:
> >
> > > I am in the exact same position. I have a number of things which are
> > > essentially enumerations. Since PostgreSQL does not support an enumeration
> > > type (MySQL does, but then it doesn't have a proper boolean type), I have a
> >
> > Why don't you use a CHECK contraint? That's the standard way to do
> > it.
>
> I wonder if you could explain how to use CHECK for this please? I'm having a
> little trouble thinking in that manner but then I've only seen and used the
> table associating name and value method before and so am a little biased.
>
>
> --
> Nigel J. Andrews
> Director
>
> ---
> Logictree Systems Limited
> Computer Consultants
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-06-07 22:04:47 | Re: Are globally defined constants possible at all ? |
Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-06-07 21:31:48 | Re: Are globally defined constants possible at all ? |