On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> 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