Ya, I know I could pass them in. Just wanted to know if they were already floating around out there as globals or something. That way I wouldn't have to drop/recreate the constraint itself. These would be constraint violations where the name of the constraint being violated is in the returned message (should there be a violation). I named the constraints to identify the column and describe the nature of the problem. Not sure how to capture that info if the trigger disallowed the value. Also, I need to defer constraint checking for some transactions. Making the trigger sensitive to this deferral is not something that I wanted to devote a lot of time to. It just seemed more natural to keep this as a check constraint. -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Sievers [mailto:gsievers19@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:14 PM To: Gauthier, Dave Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Access to NEW.column outside of a trigger function. "Gauthier, Dave" <dave.gauthier@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I have a check constraint that runs a PlPgsql function which returns a > pass/ fail status which the constraint uses to allow or disallow the > value. This is not a trigger function. It's just a plain-ole > PlPgsql. Is there a way I can read (not write, just read) the > NEW.column values that a trigger function would normally have access > to? Sure. Just pass them into your validator func as parameters. But why are you avoiding use of a trigger here? > Thanks in Advance for any help. > -- Jerry Sievers Postgres DBA/Development Consulting e: gsievers19@xxxxxxxxxxx p: 305.321.1144 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
