On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > A CHECK constraint using a volatile function is potentially valid > and useful, IMO. Think about a column which is supposed to record > the moment of an event which has occurred. It could make sense to > ensure that the timestamptz value is < now(); On the other hand, an > index entry based on now() is clearly a problem. > > Otherwise I agree with your response -- this is clearly *not* a bug.
Hm. I suppose it depends on what you think a constraint is. I had always thought it was a guarantee that all the data in the table would meet that constraint. Not just a procedural definition for something to do at certain points in time. But I guess I responded based on my understanding without checking whether it was right. sorry. Hm, but this does raise the question of whether they're the right thing to be basing the partitioning constraint exclusion code on. I'll speculate without checking again that we check the immutability of the constraint before using it in constraint exclusion but that seems a ad-hoc. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
