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: 2023-07-25T15:54:39Z
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 11:39, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm not really thrilled with the idea of every not-null constraint
> having a name, to be honest. Of all the kinds of constraints that we
> have in the system, NOT NULL constraints are probably the ones where
> naming them is least likely to be interesting, because they don't
> really have any interesting properties. A CHECK constraint has an
> expression; a foreign key constraint has columns that it applies to on
> each side plus the identity of the table and opclass information, but
> a NOT NULL constraint seems like it can never have any property other
> than which column. So it sort of seems like a waste to name it. But if
> we want it catalogued then we don't really have an option, so I
> suppose we just have to accept a bit of clutter as the price of doing
> business.
>

I agree. I definitely do *not* want a bunch of NOT NULL constraint names
cluttering up displays. Can we legislate that all NOT NULL implementing
constraints are named by mashing together the table name, column name, and
something to identify it as a NOT NULL constraint? Maybe even something
like pg_not_null_[relname]_[attname] (with some escaping), using the pg_
prefix to make the name reserved similar to schemas and tables? And then
don't show such constraints in \d, not even \d+ - just indicate it in
the Nullable column of the column listing as done now. Show a NOT NULL
constraint if there is something odd about it - for example, if it gets
renamed, or not renamed when the table is renamed.

Sorry for the noise if this has already been decided otherwise.