Horton

Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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: 2023-07-25T19:06:52Z
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, 25 Jul 2023 at 14:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 1:33 PM Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > My suggestion is for \d+ to show NOT NULL constraints only if there is
> something weird going on (wrong name, duplicate constraints, …). If there
> is nothing weird about the constraint then explicitly listing it provides
> absolutely no information that is not given by "not null" in the "Nullable"
> column. Easier said than done I suppose. I'm just worried about my \d+
> displays becoming less useful.
>
> I mean, the problem is that if you want to ALTER TABLE .. DROP
> CONSTRAINT, you need to know what the valid arguments to that command
> are, and the names of these constraints will be just as valid as the
> names of any other constraints.
>

Can't I just ALTER TABLE … DROP NOT NULL still?

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.