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
