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
On 2023-Sep-05, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The following information schema views are affected by the not-null > constraint catalog entries: > > 1. CHECK_CONSTRAINTS > 2. CONSTRAINT_COLUMN_USAGE > 3. DOMAIN_CONSTRAINTS > 4. TABLE_CONSTRAINTS > > Note that 1 and 3 also contain domain constraints. So as long as the domain > not-null constraints are not similarly catalogued, we can't delete the > separate not-null union branch. (3 never had one, so arguably a bit buggy.) > > I think we can fix up 4 by just deleting the not-null union branch. > > For 2, the simple fix is also easy, but there are some other options, as you > discuss above. > > How do you want to proceed? I posted as a patch in a separate thread[1]. Let me fix up the definitions for views 1 and 3 for domains per your comments, and I'll post in that thread again. [1] https://postgr.es/m/202309041710.psytrxlsiqex@alvherre.pgsql -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Ninguna manada de bestias tiene una voz tan horrible como la humana" (Orual)