On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 04:51:33PM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: > What I find a bit annoying is politely deal with the error once it > is reported back to the application *and* connection and *bandwidth* > costs of moving clearly wrong data back and forward. This sounds a bit like premature optimization to me; I don't think many people worry about optimizing the failure code paths. I know I prefer to make sure that things go quickly when they're working. If you're worried about someone performing a DOS attack on a failure then you'd want to optimize it, but surely you'd want the checks early in the application code. > If you've a good mapping between pg types and the application > language/library types it becomes easier to keep in sync those > checks otherwise it is a really boring job and DB checks becomes just > one more security net to maintain. It does, but constraints like that aren't going to be changing to regularly are they? -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
