On 11/29/2010 01:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 11/29/2010 12:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> But that could equally well be stored in a user table rather than a
>>> system table.
>> Yeah. The trouble is you won't be able to use that reliably in a check
>> constraint, which I imagine is one of the principal intended purposes.
> Moving the same data to a system table doesn't fix that, unless you
> require that the system table be immutable ... which'd seem to make
> the idea useless.
>
>
Oh, yes, I agree.
cheers
andrew
