Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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
Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> writes: > I thought I saw some discussion about the SQL standard saying that there is > a difference between putting NOT NULL in a column definition, and CHECK > (column_name NOT NULL). So if we're going to take this seriously, I think > that means there needs to be a field in pg_constraint which identifies > whether a constraint is a "real" one created explicitly as a constraint, or > if it is just one created because a field is marked NOT NULL. If we're going to go that way, I think that we should take the further step of making not-null constraints be their own contype rather than an artificially generated CHECK. The bloat in pg_constraint from CHECK expressions made this way seems like an additional reason not to like doing it like that. regards, tom lane