| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Geery <andrew(dot)geery(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |
| Date: | 2011-06-24 22:39:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1308954898-sup-3215@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
So remind me ... did we discuss PRIMARY KEY constraints? Are they
supposed to show up as inherited not null rows in the child? Obviously,
they do not show up as PKs in the child, but they *are* not null so my
guess is that they need to be inherited as not null as well. (Right
now, unpatched head of course emits the column as attnotnull).
In this case, the inherited name (assuming that the child declaration
does not explicitely state a constraint name) should be the same as the
PK, correct?
It is unclear to me that primary keys shouldn't be inherited by default.
But I guess that's a separate discussion.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-24 23:01:49 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2011-06-24 22:23:13 | Re: Another issue with invalid XML values |