Received: from sid.trust.ee (sid.trust.ee [194.204.23.180]) by hub.org
	(8.8.8/8.7.5) with ESMTP id EAA01281;
	Thu, 16 Jul 1998 04:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from trust.ee (wink.trust.ee [194.204.23.184])
	by sid.trust.ee (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA02648;
	Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:26:53 +0300
Message-ID: <35ADBA13.753CDE3E@trust.ee>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:30:11 +0300
From: Hannu Krosing <hannu@trust.ee>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>
CC: pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org, hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] changes in 6.4
References: <199807141537.LAA24391@candle.pha.pa.us>
	<35AD0879.2EA15E8B@trust.ee> <35AD1048.97441728@krs.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> 
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >
> > Not requiring the column to sort on in target list ia also quite
> > important.
> 
> I'm not sure but isn't this already in 6.4-current ?
> 
> >
> > As are the (still elementary) constraints, still elementary becuse
> > there is no way to use functions or "is null" in check constraint,
> 
> ispas=> create table t (x int, check (x is null or x = 5));
> CREATE
> ispas=> insert into t values (1);
> ERROR:  ExecAppend: rejected due to CHECK constraint $1
> ispas=> insert into t values (null);
> INSERT 168212 1
> ispas=> insert into t values (5);
> INSERT 168213 1
> 
> And I'm sure that functions are supported too. This is 6.3.2

Sorry, i tried the wrong syntax (without IS ) ;(

but functions still dont work:

hannu=> create table test1 (a text, b text,
hannu-> check (trim(a) <> '' or trim(b) <> ''));
ERROR:  parser: parse error at or near "trim"

If I use a non-existing function, I get a different answer

hannu=> create table test1 (a text, b text,
hannu-> check (strip(a) <> '' or strip(b) <> ''));
ERROR:  function strip(text) does not exist

So it cant't be just "parser" error

> > and constraints can be used only when defining tables, not in
> > "alter table" construct.
> 
> I hadn't time to do this when implementing and have no plans
> to do this. In "near" future :)
> 
> >
> > > The days where every release fixed server crashes, or added a feature
> > > that users were 'screaming for' may be a thing of the past.
> >
> > Is anyone working on fixing the exploding optimisations for many OR-s,
> > at least the canonic case used by access?
> >
> > My impression is that this has fallen somewhere between
> > insightdist and Vadim.
> 
> I'm not working...

Are you after some general solution, or are you first implementing 
the 'rewrite to union' way ?

Hannu