| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya(dot)himanshu(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CHECK Constraint Deferrable |
| Date: | 2023-10-13 00:36:02 |
| Message-ID: | 02394b07-9ec2-4d8c-a051-1638b88c8322@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/10/23 15:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 5:07 PM David G. Johnston
> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> 2. I don't think it's a good idea for the same patch to try to solve
>>> two problems unless they are so closely related that solving one
>>> without solving the other is not sensible.
>>
>> A NOT NULL constraint apparently is just a special case of a check constraint which seems closely related enough to match your definition.
>
> Yes, that might be true. I suppose I'd like to hear from the patch
> author(s) about that. I'm somewhat coming around to your idea that
> maybe both should be covered together, but I'm not the one writing the
> patch.
Álvaro Herrera has put (and is still putting) immense effort into
turning NOT NULL into a CHECK constraint.
Honestly, I don't see why the two patches need to be combined.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-10-13 00:40:04 | Re: Some performance degradation in REL_16 vs REL_15 |
| Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2023-10-13 00:20:59 | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |