Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 02:01:32AM +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> To do this optimization we do have to assume that CHECKs in
>> DOMAINs are at least STABLE, but I don't see that as a problem;
>> those should be IMMUTABLE anyway, I think.
> The system has such assumptions already.
What bothers me about this general approach is that the check condition is
evaluated against a null whether or not there are any rows in the table.
This means that side-effects of the check condition would happen even when
they did not happen in the previous implementation. Maybe that's all
right, but to say it's all right you must make a stronger form of the
"check conditions are immutable" assumption than we make elsewhere,
ie not just that its result won't change but that it has no visible
evaluation side-effects. So I disagree with Noah's conclusion that we're
already assuming this.
As an example, if the check condition is such that it actually throws
an error (not just returns false) for null input, the ALTER command
would fail outright, whereas it would previously have succeeded as long
as the table is empty. (BTW, should not the patch be checking for a false
result?)
This objection could be met by doing a precheck to verify that the table
contains at least one live row. That's pretty ugly and personally I'm not
sure it's necessary, but I think there's room to argue that it is.
regards, tom lane
