From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 9ED1D2A29A for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:52:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7b6g9c2ct1Cf for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:52:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 569A12A296 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:52:48 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] sql: disallow use of TYPEOF in Check From: "n.pettik" In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 22:52:46 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <38EB3E8B-39FA-4402-B317-3113E13941F5@tarantool.org> References: <1ca353f2acec30ae27d59684a08005f25fbd5228.1548838034.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Cc: Kirill Shcherbatov > On 26 Mar 2019, at 13:59, Kirill Shcherbatov = wrote: >=20 > Due to the fact that we are going to perform CHECKs validations > on the server side, checks are performed on the fields with > affinity We don=E2=80=99t have =E2=80=98affinity=E2=80=99 anymore :) > already applied that may differ with type of original > data. For instance, we have *super* type SCALAR. It may contain values of different types. Using typeof function we can restrict set of acceptable types. Another example: until we introduce UNSIGNED type, we can filter negative values with typeof function. > After the introduction of static types, the need for type checks > based on the CHECKs disappeared. >=20 > Needed for #3691 And why it is needed for #3691? Now arguments are not convincing enough.