Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints

Excerpts from Nikhil Sontakke's message of jue ago 04 04:23:59 -0400 2011:

> Some nit-picking.
>
> AFAICS above, we seem to be only using 'tbinfo' to identify the object
> type here - 'table' visavis 'domain'. We could probably reduce the
> above two elses to a single one and use the check of tbinfo being not
> null to decide which object type name to spit out..

Yeah, I considered that, but I rejected the idea on the grounds that all
the preceding blocks use this style. (Also, if I understand you well,
what you suggest would incur into a translatability problem; we'd have
to create two separate messages for that purpose anyway.)

> Although, it's difficult to see how we could end up marking NOT NULL
> constraints as 'separate' ever. So this code will be rarely exercised,
> if ever IMO.

Well, as Dean points out, as soon as we have NOT VALID constraints it
will be necessary. I prefer to leave that out for a later patch.

Thanks for looking.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support