On Apr 13, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Thank you for the great info. If I may, here's another question. I am
in
the need of new scalar types, essentially domain'd smallints, hence
why my composite type had but one composite member. Domain'd
smallints would be great, but it seems when they g
James Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thank you for the great info. If I may, here's another question. I am in
> the need of new scalar types, essentially domain'd smallints, hence
> why my composite type had but one composite member. Domain'd
> smallints would be great, but it seems when th
On Apr 12, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
James Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
insert into simple_table values (null, '(43)'); -- GRR works!!! It'll
let any smallint in. What happened to the constraint?
The composite-type input routine doesn't check any constraints ...
and that includes do
James Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> insert into simple_table values (null, '(43)'); -- GRR works!!! It'll
> let any smallint in. What happened to the constraint?
The composite-type input routine doesn't check any constraints ...
and that includes domains. You can make it work if you don
I'm trying to experiment with domains and composite types under 8.0.2.
It seems that domain constraints don't fire when the domain is embedded
within a composite type:
---
create domain simple as smallint default 0 constraint limits check
(VALUE IN (0,1,2,3));
create type comp_simple as ( simp_
