On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that you have to rerun the query to verify that the CHECK > condition still holds, whenever the table that the CHECK clause is > checking changes. This is rather problematic, because we'd need to make > the system aware of such reverse dependencies. Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG) http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
