Horton

Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-07-25T20:05:30Z
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 Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 3:07 PM Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I suppose ALTER CONSTRAINT to change the deferrable status and validity (that is why we're doing this, right?) needs the constraint name. But the constraint name is formulaic by default, and my proposal is to suppress it only when it matches the formula, so you could just construct the constraint name using the documented formula if it's not explicitly listed.
>
> I really don’t see it as a good use of space to add n lines to the \d+ display just to confirm that the "not null" designations in the "Nullable" column are implemented by named constraints with the expected names.

Yeah, I mean, I get that. That was my initial concern, too. But I also
think if there's some complicated rule that determines what gets
displayed and what doesn't, nobody's going to remember it, and then
when you don't see something, you're never going to be sure exactly
what's going on. Displaying everything is going to be clunky
especially if, like me, you tend to be careful to mark columns NOT
NULL when they are, but when something goes wrong, the last thing you
want to do is run a \d command and have it show you incomplete
information.

I can't count the number of times that somebody's shown me the output
of a query against pg_locks or pg_stat_activity that had been filtered
to remove irrelevant information and it turned out that the hidden
information was not so irrelevant as the person who wrote the query
thought. It happens all the time. I don't want to create the same kind
of situation here.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com