Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies
Date
Msg-id 26697.1078190882@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to CHECK constraints inconsistencies  (Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>)
Responses Re: CHECK constraints inconsistencies
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com> writes:
> In both cases, the CHECK constraint uses a function that is stable or 
> volatile. It was suggested that functions used in CHECK constraints be 
> restricted to immutable,

This seems reasonable to me.  I'm a bit surprised we do not have such a
check already.

Of course, a user could easily get into the sort of situation you
describe anyway, just by lying about the volatility labeling of a
user-defined function.  But at least we could say it was his fault
then ;-)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Tablespaces
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?