Horton

Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
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: 2024-05-16T03:09:48Z
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 Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:50:36AM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-May-14, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Turns out these commits generated a single release note item, which I
> > have now removed with the attached committed patch.
> 
> Hmm, but the commits about not-null constraints for domains were not
> reverted, only the ones for constraints on relations.  I think the
> release notes don't properly address the ones on domains.  I think it's
> at least these two commits:
> 
> > -Author: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
> > -2024-03-20 [e5da0fe3c] Catalog domain not-null constraints
> > -Author: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
> > -2024-04-15 [9895b35cb] Fix ALTER DOMAIN NOT NULL syntax
> 
> It may still be a good idea to make a note about those, at least to
> point out that information_schema now lists them.  For example, pg11
> release notes had this item

Let me explain what I did to adjust the release notes.  I took your
commit hashes, which were longer than mine, and got the commit subject
text from them.  I then searched the release notes to see which commit
subjects existed in the document.  Only the first three did, and the
release note item has five commits.

The then tested if the last two patches could be reverted, and 'patch'
thought they could be, so that confirmed they were not reverted.

However, there was no text in the release note item that corresponded to
the commits, so I just removed the entire item.

What I now think happened is that the last two commits were considered
part of the larger NOT NULL change, and not worth mentioning separately,
but now that the NOT NULL part is reverted, we might need to mention
them.

I rarely handle such complex cases so I don't think I was totally
correct in my handling.  Let's get a reply to Peter Eisentraut's
question and we can figure out what to do.

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

  Only you can decide what is important to you.