Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because my EXECUTE example didn't work I have created a new example
> using date_trunc(), which I think is less error-prone than the
> comparisons done in the original example:
This is not an improvement either. You can't represent the check
constraints that way (at least not if you want the planner to do
constraint exclusion with them) and I don't think it's "less
error-prone" to have a different representation in the trigger than
you have in the constraints.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
