Horton

Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-07-24T19:22:50Z
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 Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 6:33 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> That's the first thing I proposed actually.  I got one vote down from
> Robert Haas[1], but while the idea seems to have had support from Justin
> Pryzby (in \dt++) [2] and definitely did from Peter Eisentraut [3], I do
> not like it too much myself, mainly because the partition list has a
> very similar treatment and I find that one an annoyance.

I think I might want to retract my earlier -1 vote. I mean, I agree
with former me that having the \d+ output get a whole lot longer is
not super-appealing. But I also agree with Dean that having this
information available somewhere is probably important, and I also
agree with your point that inventing \d++ for this isn't necessarily a
good idea. I fear that will just result in having to type an extra
plus sign any time you want to see all of the table details, to make
sure that psql knows that you really mean it. So, maybe showing it in
the \d+ output as Dean proposes is the least of evils.

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