Re: Patch: Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: José Arthur Benetasso Villanova <jose(dot)arthur(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch: Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint
Date: 2010-09-27 08:58:30
Message-ID: A883EE6393BBD2B515D38C81@amenophis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On 26. September 2010 15:50:06 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

>> I think his question was - how do we feel about the massive catalog
>> bloat this patch will create?
>
> It's a fair question.
>
> I can imagine designing things so that we don't create an explicit
> pg_constraint row for the simplest case of an unnamed, non-inherited
> NOT NULL constraint. Seems like it would complicate matters quite
> a lot though, in exchange for saving what in the end isn't an enormous
> amount of space.

What i can try is to record the inheritance information only in case of
attinhcount > 0. This would make maintenance of the pg_constraint records
for NOT NULL columns a little complicater though. Another thing we should
consider is that Peter's functional dependency patch was supposed to rely
on this feature (1), once it gets done. Not sure this still holds true....

1)
<http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1279361718.17928.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net>

--
Thanks

Bernd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bernd Helmle 2010-09-27 09:24:48 Re: TODO: You can alter it, but you can't view it
Previous Message Devrim GÜNDÜZ 2010-09-27 08:58:04 A small update for postgresql.conf.sample