Horton

Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andrew Geery <andrew.geery@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Date: 2011-06-29T22:16:20Z
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. Catalog NOT NULL constraints

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 29 13:07:25 -0400 2011:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun jun 27 10:35:59 -0400 2011:
>
>> > Interesting.  This whole thing requires quite a bit of rejiggering in
>> > the initial transformation phase, I think, but yeah, I see the points
>> > here and I will see to them.  Does this mean that "NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY"
>> > now behaves differently?  I think it does , because if you drop the PK
>> > then the field needs to continue being not null.
>>
>> Yeah, I think an implicit not-null because you made it a primary key
>> is now different from one that you write out.
>
> Actually, it wasn't that hard, but I'm not really sure I like the
> resulting code:

What don't you like about it?

My concern is that I'm not sure it's correct...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company