Adding a check constraint

Hi,
I wish to add a CHECK constraint checking for the presence of '@' symbol on a column with email ids.How to set it . Please guide.

ALTER TABLE testmail
ADD CONSTRAINT chk_email_id CHECK
(REGEXP_LIKE(mail_id, '[A-Z0-9._%-]+@[A-Z0-9._%-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}'));

Similar Messages

Check constraint from domain missing after generation

Hi,
I've got the following problem with designer 10g. When I create a column and specify a specific domain, then generate the scripts for 10g (or 8i,9,...) the check constraints that is specified in the domain goes missing. The strange part is that we have about 50 domains and 49 of them work perfect but one of them just doesn't want to be generated. I've been comparing the domain to the others but I don't see any major differences that would cause the problem. Anyone know what could cause the problem or where I should (I think it is somewhere in the design & generate part) ?
Help would be greatly appreciated.
Grtz
Message was edited by:
Yves C

Kent,
in the DM v3.3.0.747 I have defined domains using value lists that lets you specify data values for the domain instead of define a check constraint, example Domain Name: "YesNo" and Value List -> "Y", "N".
After adding a new column and set with the domain created, I force to apply the standard names to table with the button "Naming Rules", and the constraint created is correctly named . Notice that I need to force to apply the standard names because by default these constraints are created without name.
Now I checked create a domain with check constraint definition for 11g (instead of using a list of values) and the behavior was the same.
I recently upgraded to version 4.0EA2 and it works in the same way for both, so see if forcing to apply the "naming rules" solves your issue.
Regards.
Ariel.

Invalid check constraint - cleaning up

Hi,
Is there a way to get rid of an invalid check constraint after attempting to add it to a Workspace Manager enabled table?
If I do the following on Oracle 10.2.0.1:
create table table1 ( id number(20) not null, data varchar2(50), primary key (id));
exec dbms_wm.enableversioning('TABLE1');
insert into table1 values ( 1, 'a' );
exec dbms_wm.beginddl('TABLE1');
alter table table1_lts add check ( id > 1);
exec dbms_wm.commitddl('TABLE1');
I get "cannot validate (BR.SYS_C00580318) - check constraint violated", which is expected. However, at this point the table1_lts is gone so the ddl operation cannot be rolled back. If I retry the commit, ignoring errors:
exec dbms_wm.commitddl('TABLE1',TRUE);
the ddl operation completes, but the check constraint is still present in user_wm_constraints. If I then do the following:
exec dbms_wm.beginddl('TABLE1');
exec dbms_wm.commitddl('TABLE1');
I get "cannot validate (BR.SYS_C00580318_LTS) - check constraint violated" so it appears to retry adding the invalid constraint. I've also tried dropping the constraint again during the second ddl operation. This prevents the second error but the constraint still hangs around in user_wm_constraints.
One thing I might be missing is some sort of cleanup step, after the first commitddl, that would get rid of the constraint completely. Is there some sort of extra operation I should be doing at this point?

Hi,
The metadata is out of sync because of the statement that got skipped during the initial commitDDL. This can be fixed by verifying that the constraint does not exist on the _LT table and then executing the following while logged in as someone with system privileges:
SQL> delete wmsys.wm$constraints_table where owner='<versioned_table_owner>' and constraint_name='<user_defined_constraint>' ;
We can add a check to verify the constraint during commitDDL to prevent this situation in the future.
Regards,
Ben

Primary key and relevant not null check constraints....

Hi ,
There are some constraints of primary key type and not null check constraints on columns which constitute each primary key....
Should I/Do I have to drop them....????
Do they burden the db at the time of data validation....????
Thanks...
Sim

Hi,
>>There are some constraints of primary key type and not null check constraints on columns which constitute each primary key..
In fact, a column that constitutes a primary key, by default cannot accept NULL values. In this case, defines a PK column as NOT NULL would not be necessary.
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> create table x (id number constraint pk_x primary key);
Table created.
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> desc x
Name                  Null?    Type
ID                    NOT NULL NUMBER
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> select constraint_name,constraint_type,table_name,search_condition from user_constraints where table_name='X';
CONSTRAINT_NAME                C TABLE_NAME      SEARCH_CONDITION
PK_X                           P X
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> create table y (id number not null constraint pk_y primary key);
Table created.
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> desc y
Name                  Null?    Type
ID                   NOT NULL NUMBER
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> select constraint_name,constraint_type,table_name,search_condition from user_constraints where table_name='Y';
CONSTRAINT_NAME                C TABLE_NAME      SEARCH_CONDITION
SYS_C006327381 C Y "ID" IS NOT NULL
PK_Y                           P Y
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> alter table y drop constraint SYS_C006327381;
Table altered.
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> desc y
Name                                      Null?    Type
ID                                        NOT NULL NUMBER
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> insert into y values (NULL);
insert into y values (NULL)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01400: cannot insert NULL into ("LEGATTI"."Y"."ID")
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> insert into y values (1);
1 row created.
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> insert into y values (1);
insert into y values (1)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00001: unique constraint (LEGATTI.PK_Y) violated
>>Should I/Do I have to drop them....????
I don't see any problem, otherwise, drop the NOT NULL constraint is the same with alter the column table like below:
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> create table z (id number not null constraint pk_z primary key);
Table created.
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> select constraint_name,constraint_type,table_name,search_condition from user_constraints where table_name='Z';
CONSTRAINT_NAME                C TABLE_NAME                     SEARCH_CONDITION
SYS_C006328420 C Z "ID" IS NOT NULL
PK_Z                           P Z
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> desc z
Name                                      Null?    Type
ID                                        NOT NULL NUMBER
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> alter table z modify id NULL;
Table altered.
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> select constraint_name,constraint_type,table_name,search_condition from user_constraints where table_name='Z';
CONSTRAINT_NAME                C TABLE_NAME                     SEARCH_CONDITION
PK_Z                           P Z
LEGATTI@ORACLE10> desc z
Name                                      Null?    Type
ID                                        NOT NULL NUMBERCheers
Legatti

DB Diagram: Modality Difference between NOT NULL and check constraint

Hi,
I am using jdev 11g (11.1.1.10) I am trying to create a db diagram from two tables. I have a FK that is NOT NULL (defined on the column). When i try to display these two tables modality, it does not show up in the diagram. I noticed that there are two ways NOT null can be defined on a table (right click on the db object to edit it; a) under column definitions there is a check box for not null, b) there is a check constraint that one can add to do not null.
I am confused and was wondering whether I must I have check constraints on the database in order to display modality (optional versus mandatory). Logically speaking it does not make any sense though.

Hi Susan,
Thanks for your email. I understand that in order to show modality under
UML notation, one must define a COLUMN being NOT NULL instead of defining a check constraint.
I still do not understand how modality (optional versus mandatory) is shown in ERD notation in JDev. I tried flipping ERD/UML notations and made sure icons for tables were showing, but no MODALITY is shown in ERD notation ( an '0" icon or a "|" icon for optional and mandatory). Is it the solid line versus dotted line in the ERD diagram? I am confused because generally under Crawfoot ERD notation '0" icon or a "|" icon is shown for modality.
Modality gets picked up in jdev diagram when COLUMN not null is specified and UML notation is used
ALTER TABLE DETAILAJ MODIFY EMPID not null;
Modality does not get picked up in jdev db diagram when check constraint is specified and UML notation is used
ALTER TABLE DETAILAJ
ADD CONSTRAINT CK_NN_DETAILAJ__EMPID CHECK(EMPID IS NOT NULL) ;
Another question i have related to the matter mentioned above is as follows. Since I want to see modality in db diagram, it follows that I must define a column as not null instead of a check constraint. I must also use NO VALIDATE on NOT NULL column because i have prior data that does not meet the new restriction. I noticed that if i use the following syntax to define a NOT NULL column, two things happen.
a) A constraint is defined as not null automatically and a system generated name is given to the constraint.
b) DB diagram in Jdev does not show the modality.
My question is whether there is a way to see modality in this case.
alter table DETAILAJ
MODIFY EMPID NOT NULL ENABLE NOVALIDATE ;
Edited by: user11219846 on Nov 19, 2009 11:07 AM

Peculiar problem in oracle 10g on AIX 5.3.0 With Check constraints

Hi Every One,
I am facing peculiar problem in oracle 10.2.0.1.0,AIX 5.3.0. I created table with check constraints like this
create table test1 (name nvarchar2(1),check (name in('Y','N')));
SQL> create table test1 (name nvarchar2(1),check (name in('Y','N')));
Table created.
SQL> insert into test1 values ('Y');
1 row created.
SQL> COMMIT;
SQL> select from test1 where name = 'Y';* Why this statement is n't working
no rows selected
SQL> select * from test1;
N
Y
ANOTHER INTERSTING ONE IS
SQL> select * from test1 where name in('Y'); Why this statement is n't working
no rows selected
SQL> select * from test1 where name in('Y','Y'); it's working
N
Y
SQL> select * from test1 where name in('','Y'); it's working
N
Y
SQL> select * from test1 where name in('7','Y'); it's working
N
Y
Like
SQL> select * from test1 where name like 'Y'; it's not working
no rows selected
I created a table without check constraints
SQL> create table test2 (name nvarchar2(1));
Table created.
SQL> insert into test2 values ('Y');
1 row created.
SQL> select * from test2;
N
Y
SQL> select * from test2 where name ='Y'; it's working
N
Y
SQL> select * from test2 where name like 'Y'; it's working
N
Y
Database Details
NLS_LANGUAGE AMERICAN
NLS_TERRITORY AMERICA
NLS_CURRENCY $
NLS_ISO_CURRENCY AMERICA
NLS_NUMERIC_CHARACTERS .,
NLS_CHARACTERSET WE8MSWIN1252
NLS_CALENDAR GREGORIAN
NLS_DATE_FORMAT DD-MON-RR
NLS_DATE_LANGUAGE AMERICAN
NLS_SORT BINARY
NLS_TIME_FORMAT HH.MI.SSXFF AM
PARAMETER VALUE
NLS_TIMESTAMP_FORMAT DD-MON-RR HH.MI.SSXFF AM
NLS_TIME_TZ_FORMAT HH.MI.SSXFF AM TZR
NLS_TIMESTAMP_TZ_FORMAT DD-MON-RR HH.MI.SSXFF AM TZR
NLS_DUAL_CURRENCY $
NLS_COMP BINARY
NLS_LENGTH_SEMANTICS BYTE
NLS_NCHAR_CONV_EXCP FALSE
NLS_NCHAR_CHARACTERSET AL16UTF16
NLS_RDBMS_VERSION 10.2.0.1.0
Why it's happening. Whehter check constraint is valid or not in Equallity operator and like and in .
Whereever we using single character column with check constraint,it's working with Equality operator and like and in.
IT'S WORKING FINE WITHOUT CHECK CONSTRAINTS.WE HAVE TWO AIX MACHINES WITH ORACLE10G.THE SAME PROBLEM OCCURING IN TWO MACHINES
PLEASE HELP ME .
THANK YOU,
WITH REGARDS,
N.VINODH

h
Edited by: user3266490 on Dec 3, 2008 2:30 AM

How to use external functions in check constraints

I created my own function:
create or replace
function if_num_get_num (inval in varchar2)
return number
is
dummy number;
Begin
dummy := to_number(inval);
return dummy;
exception
when others then return null;
end;Can I use it in table check constraint?
When I use standard function INSTR everything is OK.
ALTER TABLE A_S
ADD CONSTRAINT A_S_CHK1 CHECK
(INSTR(NAZWA_ZA, ':') > 0)
ENABLE;but when I try to create it with my function:
ALTER TABLE A_S
ADD CONSTRAINT A_S_CHK1 CHECK
(IF_NUM_GET_NUM(INSTR(NAZWA_ZA, ':')) > 0)
ENABLE;I get a message "Invalid column IF_NUM_GET_NUM"

Read the restrictions.
>
Restrictions on CHECK Constraints
A CHECK constraint requires that a condition be true or unknown for every row of the table. If a statement causes the condition to evaluate to false, then the statement is rolled back. The condition of a CHECK constraint has these limitations:
* The condition must be a boolean expression that can be evaluated using the values in the row being inserted or updated.
* The condition cannot contain subqueries or sequences.
* The condition cannot include the SYSDATE, UID, USER, or USERENV SQL functions.
* The condition cannot contain the pseudocolumns LEVEL or ROWNUM.
* The condition cannot contain the PRIOR operator.
** The condition cannot contain a user-defined function.*
>
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e17125/adfns_constraints.htm#ADFNS282

How to add a check constraint to a column to accept values in the following format: "L214"?

All I could come up with is this:
check (column_name like '____');
But That doesn't enforce the first character to be a letter and the other three to be numbers.

Hi,
"PS: Why the f***you have so many subforums here?"
Because it is much easier to seperate and let experts answer to specific details of SQL Server. SQL Server is not a small product as many people think ;-)
Here is the solution:
CREATe table SampleA (A INT, B VARCHAR(MAX) CHECK (B LIKE '[A-Z][0-9][0-9][0-9]'))
INSERT INTO SampleA VALUES (1,'0000')
Msg 547, Level 16, State 0, Line 2
The INSERT statement conflicted with the CHECK constraint "CK__SampleA__B__38B96646". The conflict occurred in database "master", table "dbo.SampleA", column 'B'.
The statement has been terminated.
INSERT INTO SampleA VALUES (1,'L000')
--(1 row(s) affected)
INSERT INTO SampleA VALUES (1,'L0001')
Msg 547, Level 16, State 0, Line 2
The INSERT statement conflicted with the CHECK constraint "CK__SampleA__B__38B96646". The conflict occurred in database "master", table "dbo.SampleA", column 'B'.
The statement has been terminated.
-Jens
Jens K. Suessmeyer http://blogs.msdn.com/Jenss

How to modify a CHECK constraint.

We need to modify a check constraint to allow new values. Is there a way we can modify the existing constraint or should we drop and recreate including new values.
Example:
We have a table SLOG and SNO is a column accepting numeric values. Currently there is a constraint on this column so that it accepts values of 1,2,3,4. Now I want to insert a value of 5 to this column. Since there is a CHECK constraint on this column it prevents the value of 5.
So the constraint needs to be modified. Is there a way we can modify the constraint using a DDL command (like ALTER TABLE) or should I drop and re create the constraint.
Thanks in advance.
Balaji

Hello,
Is there a way we can modify the constraint using a DDL command You can just MODIFY the state of your constraint ( constraint_state ).
So, if you want to modify the definition of your constraint you have to drop and create the CHECK constraint with its new definition.
Sorry, when I was writing my post, I didn't see the question was already answered.
Best regards,
Jean-Valentin
Edited by: Lubiez Jean-Valentin on Jul 11, 2010 11:04 AM

Is it possible to create a dynamic(with a select) check constraint?

create table a (col_to_be_coded_fora number);
create table b (col_to_be_coded_forb number);
create table c (col_name varchar2(20), col_code number, col_desc varchar2(20));
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 1, 'active');
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 2, 'de-active');
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 3, 'pending');
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_forb', 10, 'school');
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_forb', 20, 'hospital');
insert into a values ( 1); -- meaning 'active' for table a, column col_to_be_coded_fora, can go in
insert into a values (10); -- meaning nothing for table a, column col_to_be_coded_fora, must give error
insert into b values ( 1); -- meaning nothing for table b, column col_to_be_coded_forb, must give error
insert into b values (10); -- meaning 'school' for table b, column col_to_be_coded_fora, can go in
I know i can handle this problem with dividing table c into to tables and creating foreign key relationship.
in this demo case i have only a and b, 2 tables but i want to encode thousands of tables with a table like c.
İs it possible to create a dynamic check constraint on a table which selects c table for the inputs that have permision?
Or do i have to use after insert, update triggers on table a and b to ensure this functionality?
Is there a smarter implementation for this need, may be a design change?
Thank you,
Kind regards.
Tonguç

Hi Tonguç,
A small design change makes it possible to do this with simple foreign key constraints.
I would do something like:
ual303@ORKDEV01> CREATE TABLE c (
2    col_name VARCHAR2(20),
3     col_code NUMBER,
4     col_desc VARCHAR2(20),
5     PRIMARY KEY (col_name, col_code)
6 );
Tabel is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> CREATE TABLE a (
2    col_to_be_coded_fora NUMBER PRIMARY KEY,
3     col_name VARCHAR2(20) DEFAULT 'col_to_be_coded_fora' CHECK (col_name = 'col_to_be_coded_fora'),
4     FOREIGN KEY (col_name, col_to_be_coded_fora) REFERENCES c
5 );
Tabel is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> CREATE TABLE b (
2    col_to_be_coded_forb NUMBER PRIMARY KEY,
3     col_name VARCHAR2(20) DEFAULT 'col_to_be_coded_forb' CHECK (col_name = 'col_to_be_coded_forb'),
4     FOREIGN KEY (col_name, col_to_be_coded_forb) REFERENCES c
5 );
Tabel is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 1, 'active');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 2, 'de-active');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 3, 'pending');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_forb', 10, 'school');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_forb', 20, 'hospital');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> -- meaning 'active' for table a, column col_to_be_coded_fora, can go in
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into a(col_to_be_coded_fora) values ( 1);
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> -- meaning nothing for table a, column col_to_be_coded_fora, must give error
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into a(col_to_be_coded_fora) values (10);
insert into a(col_to_be_coded_fora) values (10)
FOUT in regel 1:
.ORA-02291: integrity constraint (UAL303.SYS_C0033537) violated - parent key not found
ual303@ORKDEV01> -- meaning nothing for table b, column col_to_be_coded_forb, must give error
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into b(col_to_be_coded_forb) values ( 1);
insert into b(col_to_be_coded_forb) values ( 1)
FOUT in regel 1:
.ORA-02291: integrity constraint (UAL303.SYS_C0033540) violated - parent key not found
ual303@ORKDEV01> -- meaning 'school' for table b, column col_to_be_coded_fora, can go in
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into b(col_to_be_coded_forb) values (10);
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01>Cheers,
Colin

EA2: Code is generated for only one column with Domain check constraint.

I created a Domain with a Value List (Y or N - Yes or No) and used that domain for two columns in the same table. But for only one column (the last one) the check appears in the generated DDL.
After I enabled the "Use Domain Constraints" both checks appear in the DDL, but one as an inline check constraint and one as an "Alter table add contraint.."
Once I changed the naming Template for the check constraint, both constraints are generated as an Alter table clause. The inline check constraint is only generated when the name of the constraint (according to the template) is too long. It would be nice if I could choose if I want an inline or a separate check constraint definition.
Edited by: Roel on Nov 23, 2010 11:55 AM
Edited by: Roel on Nov 23, 2010 12:02 PM

I logged ER for that
Philip

Using a function in a check constraint

Hi,
I created a domain table(id, code, domain_code, description) and foreign keys to this table. To ensure that a valid domain is put in the column I created a function that returns a boolean and has two parameters (id and domain_code). It returns true if the id and domain belong together.
I want to know if it is possible to create a check constraint which validates the data in the refering table with the data in the domain table.
Does anyone know if this is possible? Or do I have to use a db-trigger?
Regards,
Romano

It still sounds like all you need is a foreign key constraint. Please see the example below, based on your revised criteria.
scott@ORA92> create table domain
2    (id         number,
3      code         number,
4      domain_code number,
5      constraint domain_pk primary key (id),
6      constraint domain_uk unique (code, domain_code))
7 /
Table created.
scott@ORA92> insert into domain values (1, 10, 2)
2 /
1 row created.
scott@ORA92> create table domain_values_table
2    (id         number,
3      domain_code number,
4      constraint domain_values_table_uk unique (id, domain_code))
5 /
Table created.
scott@ORA92> insert into domain_values_table values (1, 2)
2 /
1 row created.
scott@ORA92> commit
2 /
Commit complete.
scott@ORA92> create table referring
2    (id         number,
3      domain_code number,
4      status         number,
5      constraint referring_fk foreign key (status)
6               references domain (id),
7      constraint referring_fk2 foreign key (id, domain_code)
8               references domain_values_table (id, domain_code))
9 /
Table created.
scott@ORA92> insert into referring values (1, 2, null)
2 /
1 row created.
scott@ORA92> insert into referring values (3, 4, null)
2 /
insert into referring values (3, 4, null)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-02291: integrity constraint (SCOTT.REFERRING_FK2) violated - parent key not found

Issue in adding not null constraint on 250 G table with 50 million rows.

Guys,
I need to add not null constraint on 2 column of a table with 50 million rows and ~250 GB in size, These 2 columns are newly added and I have also update the value for each of these columns to not null for each row.
After that I am adding not null constraint on these 2 columns this is taking 1 hour to complete, Is there any way to speed up this, I don't want to use ENABLE NOVALIDATE option or rather I can't use that option.

user445775 wrote:
Guys,
I need to add not null constraint on 2 column of a table with 50 million rows and ~250 GB in size, These 2 columns are newly added and I have also update the value for each of these columns to not null for each row.
After that I am adding not null constraint on these 2 columns this is taking 1 hour to complete, Is there any way to speed up this, I don't want to use ENABLE NOVALIDATE option or rather I can't use that option.And what's wrong with it taking an hour? Presumably, this is a one time operation, and it doesn't really interfere with anything else.

Urgent Check Constraint Error

hi
i have a check constraint on a table B mean Nvl(Quantity,0)>=0 but when i update a table from a trigger on insertion of another table A
with :New.Quantity -ive it gives check constraint error.
Please Note it does not turn the balance into negative for table B
second because im inserting in table A then :new.quantity reffers to table A values not the table B
why this constraint error appears.
any body suggest
thanks in advance

tĦ€ §µåдŋ wrote:
i have a check constraint on a table B mean Nvl(Quantity,0)>=0 but when i update a table from a trigger on insertion of another table A
with :New.Quantity -ive it gives check constraint error.
Please Note it does not turn the balance into negative for table B
second because im inserting in table A then :new.quantity reffers to table A values not the table B
why this constraint error appears.Not urgent at all.
So you have a constraint on table B and then a trigger on table A attempts to update table B with a negative quantity which violates the constraint and it throws a constraint error.
That sounds right to me. What's the problem?

Check Constraint names aren't synced when engineering to logical

Just learned about this tool at OOW and ran into an issue involving check constraint names being compared but not synced when engineering from the relational model to the logical model. When I set the constraint names in the logical model (and perform one last "Engineer to Logical Model") after that the compare dialog shows the table and entities match. Is this a bug?
Steps to reproduce:
1. importing a relational data model from data dictionary which contains a table with a column level check constraint
2. perform "Engineer to Logical model" to produce the logical model
Issue:
Perform another "Engineer to Logical model" which will show the table with the column level check constraint as being out of sync with the logical model's equivalent entity, when you drill down into the diff in the compare dialog box you see the check constraint name has a value in the relational model and the name is null in the logical model
Verify:
Looking in logical model at the constraint (<Entity>/Attributes/Attribute Properties/Default and Constraint/Constraint Name) the value is empty
Work Around:
Set the constraint name in the spot from verify above and perform "Engineer to Logical model" twice. The first time it will show the same issue, the second time it will show the table and entity match

Hi Bo,
thanks for feedback. It's fixed now and you'll get the fix in version 3.0.
Another( probably better workaround) - in engineering dialog - "Compare/Copy options" tab - uncheck "Don't use for new objects" option.
Philip

Adding a check constraint

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for