Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Revert structural changes to not-null constraints
- 6f8bb7c1e961 17.0 landed
-
Fix inconsistencies in error messages
- 21ac38f498b3 17.0 landed
-
Disallow direct change of NO INHERIT of not-null constraints
- d45597f72fe5 17.0 landed
-
Disallow NO INHERIT not-null constraints on partitioned tables
- 13daa33fa5a6 17.0 landed
-
Better handle indirect constraint drops
- 0cd711271d42 17.0 cited
-
Don't try to assign smart names to constraints
- d72d32f52d26 17.0 cited
-
Fix restore of not-null constraints with inheritance
- d9f686a72ee9 17.0 landed
-
ATTACH PARTITION: Don't match a PK with a UNIQUE constraint
- cee8db3f680b 17.0 landed
-
Fix propagating attnotnull in multiple inheritance
- c3709100be73 17.0 landed
-
Check stack depth in new recursive functions
- b0f7dd915bca 17.0 landed
-
Move privilege check to the right place
- ac22a9545ca9 17.0 cited
-
Update information_schema definition for not-null constraints
- 3af721794272 17.0 landed
-
Fix not-null constraint test
- d0ec2ddbe088 17.0 landed
-
Disallow changing NO INHERIT status of a not-null constraint
- 9b581c534186 17.0 cited
-
Catalog not-null constraints
- b0e96f311985 17.0 cited
-
parallel_schedule: add comment on event_trigger test dependency
- c8e43c22be27 17.0 landed
-
Revert "Catalog NOT NULL constraints" and fallout
- 9ce04b50e120 16.0 landed
-
Adjust contrib/sepgsql regression test expected outputs.
- 76c111a7f166 16.0 landed
-
Fix table name clash in recently introduced test
- 728015a47016 16.0 landed
-
Catalog NOT NULL constraints
- e056c557aef4 16.0 landed
-
Change the rules for inherited CHECK constraints to be essentially the same
- cd902b331dc4 8.4.0 cited
Attachments
- notnull-constraints-1.patch (text/x-diff) patch
So I was wrong in thinking that "this case was simple to implement" as I replied upthread. Doing that actually required me to rewrite large parts of the patch. I think it ended up being a good thing, because in hindsight the approach I was using was somewhat bogus anyway, and the current one should be better. Please find it attached. There are still a few problems, sadly. Most notably, I ran out of time trying to fix a pg_upgrade issue with pg_dump in binary-upgrade mode. I have to review that again, but I think it'll need a deeper rethink of how we pg_upgrade inherited constraints. So the pg_upgrade tests are known to fail. I'm not aware of any other tests failing, but I'm sure the cfbot will prove me wrong. I reluctantly added a new ALTER TABLE subcommand type, AT_SetAttNotNull, to allow setting pg_attribute.attnotnull without adding a CHECK constraint (only used internally). I would like to find a better way to go about this, so I may remove it again, therefore it's not fully implemented. There are *many* changed regress expect files and I didn't carefully vet all of them. Mostly it's the addition of CHECK constraints in the footers of many \d listings and stuff like that. At a quick glance they appear valid, but I need to review them more carefully still. We've had pg_constraint.conparentid for a while now, but for some constraints we continue to use conislocal/coninhcount. I think we should get rid of that and rely on conparentid completely. An easily fixed issue is that of constraint naming. ChooseConstraintName has an argument for passing known constraint names, but this patch doesn't use it and it must. One issue that I don't currently know how to fix, is the fact that we need to know whether a column is a row type or not (because they need a different null test). At table creation time that's easy to know, because we have the descriptor already built by the time we add the constraints; but if you do ALTER TABLE .. ADD COLUMN .., ADD CONSTRAINT then we don't. Some ancient code comments suggest that allowing a child table's NOT NULL constraint acquired from parent shouldn't be independently droppable. This patch doesn't change that, but it's easy to do if we decide to. However, that'd be a compatibility break, so I'd rather not do it in the same patch that introduces the feature. Overall, there's a lot more work required to get this to a good shape. That said, I think it's the right direction. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "La primera ley de las demostraciones en vivo es: no trate de usar el sistema. Escriba un guión que no toque nada para no causar daños." (Jakob Nielsen)