Horton

Re: information_schema and not-null constraints

Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>

View thread
From: Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2023-09-05T23:35:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Revert structural changes to not-null constraints

  2. Fix inconsistencies in error messages

  3. Disallow direct change of NO INHERIT of not-null constraints

  4. Disallow NO INHERIT not-null constraints on partitioned tables

  5. Better handle indirect constraint drops

  6. Don't try to assign smart names to constraints

  7. Fix restore of not-null constraints with inheritance

  8. ATTACH PARTITION: Don't match a PK with a UNIQUE constraint

  9. Fix propagating attnotnull in multiple inheritance

  10. Check stack depth in new recursive functions

  11. Move privilege check to the right place

  12. Update information_schema definition for not-null constraints

  13. Fix not-null constraint test

  14. Disallow changing NO INHERIT status of a not-null constraint

  15. Catalog not-null constraints

  16. parallel_schedule: add comment on event_trigger test dependency

  17. Revert "Catalog NOT NULL constraints" and fallout

  18. Adjust contrib/sepgsql regression test expected outputs.

  19. Fix table name clash in recently introduced test

  20. Catalog NOT NULL constraints

  21. Change the rules for inherited CHECK constraints to be essentially the same

On 9/6/23 00:14, David G. Johnston wrote:
> 
> I'm not all that for either A or B since the status quo seems workable.

Pray tell, how is it workable?  The view does not identify a specific 
constraint because we don't obey the rules on one side and we do obey 
the rules on the other side.  It is completely useless and unworkable.

> Though ideally if the system has unique names per schema then everything
> should just work - having the views produce duplicated information (as
> opposed to nothing) if they are used when the DBA doesn't enforce the
> standard's requirements seems plausible.
Let us not engage in victim blaming.  Postgres is the problem here.
-- 
Vik Fearing