Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>, exclusion@gmail.com, dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com, andrewbille@gmail.com, peter@eisentraut.org, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Date: 2024-05-15T01:32:49Z
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

Attachments

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-May-11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 
> > I have found two more problems that [] require some more work to fix,
> > so I've decided to cut my losses now and revert the whole.
> 
> Here's the revert patch, which I intend to push early tomorrow.
> 
> Commits reverted are:
> 21ac38f498b33f0231842238b83847ec63dfe07b
> d45597f72fe53a53f6271d5ba4e7acf8fc9308a1
> 13daa33fa5a6d340f9be280db14e7b07ed11f92e
> 0cd711271d42b0888d36f8eda50e1092c2fed4b3
> d72d32f52d26c9588256de90b9bc54fe312cee60
> d9f686a72ee91f6773e5d2bc52994db8d7157a8e
> c3709100be73ad5af7ff536476d4d713bca41b1a
> 3af7217942722369a6eb7629e0fb1cbbef889a9b
> b0f7dd915bca6243f3daf52a81b8d0682a38ee3b
> ac22a9545ca906e70a819b54e76de38817c93aaf
> d0ec2ddbe088f6da35444fad688a62eae4fbd840
> 9b581c53418666205938311ef86047aa3c6b741f
> b0e96f311985bceba79825214f8e43f65afa653a
> 
> with some significant conflict fixes (mostly in the last one).

Turns out these commits generated a single release note item, which I
have now removed with the attached committed patch.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.