On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Scott Bailey arta...@comcast.net wrote:
Did you read the article I sent you earlier?
Well, the difference here is that this way db doesn't really check
anything :) you just choose path of execution, that you created prior.
That's cheating :p
So yes, I read that
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Scott Bailey arta...@comcast.net wrote:
Did you read the article I sent you earlier?
Well, the difference here is that this way db doesn't really check
anything :) you just choose path of execution, that you created prior.
That's
2009/5/27 Scott Bailey arta...@comcast.net:
Who said anything about the application level?
can you give an example please ?
--
GJ
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
2009/5/27 Scott Bailey arta...@comcast.net:
Who said anything about the application level?
can you give an example please ?
Did you read the article I sent you earlier? I'm doing almost the exact
same thing you are doing save the bytea field. I create a
2009/5/25 Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz gryz...@gmail.com:
Why is it not possible to create domain on composite type ?
Consider the example, I got (a bytea, b timestamp, c timestamp). Where
b c always, and both b and c have some default value, a can stay
null.
Now, I don't want to go berserk, and
When I start to complain about domains and types in postgresql, people
often ask me - so what's exactly wrong with it - well, here you go. I
am trying to provide some feedback ;)
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
Why is it not possible to create domain on composite type ?
Consider the example, I got (a bytea, b timestamp, c timestamp). Where
b c always, and both b and c have some default value, a can stay
null.
Now, I don't want to go berserk, and create aditional table for
Scott Bailey wrote:
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
Why is it not possible to create domain on composite type ?
Consider the example, I got (a bytea, b timestamp, c timestamp). Where
b c always, and both b and c have some default value, a can stay
null.
Now, I don't want to go berserk, and create
well, I need database to guard data, not application.
Application can check things too, but database's job is to make sure
data is integral.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
well, I need database to guard data, not application.
Application can check things too, but database's job is to make sure
data is integral.
Who said anything about the application level?
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make
Why is it not possible to create domain on composite type ?
Consider the example, I got (a bytea, b timestamp, c timestamp). Where
b c always, and both b and c have some default value, a can stay
null.
Now, I don't want to go berserk, and create aditional table for that,
because type is shared
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
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 they
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
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 (
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't
16 matches
Mail list logo
