Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Morris de Oryx
Subject Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?
Date
Msg-id CAKqnccjQUE5V-P+4BCg34UFoxq0=KNQLdQD+6qcr3ocn_wre=g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?  (stan <stanb@panix.com>)
Responses Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?
List pgsql-general
I see that you've already been pointed at citext, but I don't think a CHECK constraint has been mentioned. In case it hasn't, what about something like this?

   ADD CONSTRAINT check_activity_status 
    CHECK (activity_status = 'ACTIVE' OR activity_status = 'INACTIVE');

I'm kind of allergic to ENUM...maybe that's just me. But since you're considering it, maybe it's the perfect time to consider all of your options. Such as a linked lookup table of defined allowed values (feels silly with two values), a domain (not entirely fit to purpose), or the CHECK constraint above. And, yeah, if it's only ever ACTIVE or INACTIVE, I'd normally make a Boolean named something like active, as Adrian Klaver mentioned. That's easy to reason about, and it makes it unambiguous that there are two and only two possible states..

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: stan
Date:
Subject: Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?
Next
From: stan
Date:
Subject: Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: Shouldn;t this trigger be called?