Horton

Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2024-04-15T13:20:55Z
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

(I think I had already argued this point, but I don't see it in the
archives, so here it is again).

On 2024-Feb-07, jian he wrote:

> if you place CommandCounterIncrement inside the `if (recurse)` branch,
> then the regression test will be ok.

Yeah, but don't you think this is too magical?  I mean, randomly added
CCIs in the execution path for other reasons would break this.  Worse --
how can we _ensure_ that no CCIs occur at all?  I mean, it's possible
that an especially crafted multi-subcommand ALTER TABLE could contain
just the right CCI to break things in the opposite way.  The difference
in behavior would be difficult to justify.  (For good or ill, ALTER
TABLE ATTACH PARTITION cannot run in a multi-subcommand ALTER TABLE, so
this concern might be misplaced.  Still, more certainty seems better
than less.)

I've pushed both these patches now, adding what seemed a reasonable set
of test cases.  If there still are cases behaving in unexpected ways,
please let me know.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La espina, desde que nace, ya pincha" (Proverbio africano)