Horton

Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>

View thread
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-04-06T18:20:41Z
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 Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:33:56AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> -   The forms <literal>ADD</literal> (without <literal>USING INDEX</literal>),
> +   The forms <literal>ADD</literal> (without <literal>USING INDEX</literal>, and
> +   except for the <literal>NOT NULL <replaceable>column_name</replaceable></literal>
> +   form to add a table constraint),

The "except" part seems pretty incoherent to me :(

> +     if (isnull)
> +             elog(ERROR, "null conkey for NOT NULL constraint %u", conForm->oid);

could use SysCacheGetAttrNotNull()

> +		if (rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE)
> +			ereport(ERROR,
> +					errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TABLE_DEFINITION),
> +					errmsg("cannot add constraint to only the partitioned table when partitions exist"),
> +					errhint("Do not specify the ONLY keyword."));
> +		else
> +			ereport(ERROR,
> +					errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_TABLE_DEFINITION),
> +					errmsg("cannot add constraint to table with inheritance children"),

missing "only" ?

> +	conrel = table_open(ConstraintRelationId, RowExclusiveLock);

Should this be opened after the following error check ?

> +		arr = DatumGetArrayTypeP(adatum);	/* ensure not toasted */
> +		numkeys = ARR_DIMS(arr)[0];
> +		if (ARR_NDIM(arr) != 1 ||
> +			numkeys < 0 ||
> +			ARR_HASNULL(arr) ||
> +			ARR_ELEMTYPE(arr) != INT2OID)
> +			elog(ERROR, "conkey is not a 1-D smallint array");
> +		attnums = (int16 *) ARR_DATA_PTR(arr);
> +
> +		for (int i = 0; i < numkeys; i++)
> +			unconstrained_cols = lappend_int(unconstrained_cols, attnums[i]);
> +	}

Does "arr" need to be freed ?

> +			 * Since the above deletion has been made visible, we can now
> +			 * search for any remaining constraints on this column (or these
> +			 * columns, in the case we're dropping a multicol primary key.)
> +			 * Then, verify whether any further NOT NULL or primary key exist,

If I'm reading it right, I think it should say "exists"

> +/*
> + * When a primary key index on a partitioned table is to be attached an index
> + * on a partition, the partition's columns should also be marked NOT NULL.
> + * Ensure that is the case.

I think the comment may be missing words, or backwards.
The index on the *partitioned* table wouldn't be attached.
Is the index on the *partition* that's attached *to* the former index.

> +create table c() inherits(inh_p1, inh_p2, inh_p3, inh_p4);
> +NOTICE:  merging multiple inherited definitions of column "f1"
> +NOTICE:  merging multiple inherited definitions of column "f1"
> +ERROR:  relation "c" already exists

Do you intend to make an error here ?

Also, I think these table names may be too generic, and conflict with
other parallel tests, now or in the future.

> +create table d(a int not null, f1 int) inherits(inh_p3, c);
> +ERROR:  relation "d" already exists

And here ?

> +-- with explicitely specified not null constraints

sp: explicitly

-- 
Justin