Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2011-06-29 22:16:20
Message-ID: BANLkTin0KyhrXxV_31mG7L-r9rRfg5JtMw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 29 13:07:25 -0400 2011:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun jun 27 10:35:59 -0400 2011:
>
>> > Interesting.  This whole thing requires quite a bit of rejiggering in
>> > the initial transformation phase, I think, but yeah, I see the points
>> > here and I will see to them.  Does this mean that "NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY"
>> > now behaves differently?  I think it does , because if you drop the PK
>> > then the field needs to continue being not null.
>>
>> Yeah, I think an implicit not-null because you made it a primary key
>> is now different from one that you write out.
>
> Actually, it wasn't that hard, but I'm not really sure I like the
> resulting code:

What don't you like about it?

My concern is that I'm not sure it's correct...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-06-29 22:42:19
Subject: Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2011-06-29 21:44:53
Subject: Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group