On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Or we could decide that volatile domain CHECK expressions are un-sensible >>> and just relabel all these input functions as stable, which would make >>> everything consistent. Thoughts? > >> Aren't volatile CHECK expressions pretty un-sensible in general? > > Yeah, probably so. I can't think of a use-case that seems like it would > justify the possible performance hit from having to assume all functions > performing datatype input calls are volatile.
That's my thought, too. Any non-immutable CHECK constraint is basically playing with fire, to some degree. But a stable check constraint is at least playing with it somewhat responsibly, whereas a volatile check constraint strikes me as more like doing it while bathing in turpentine. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
