Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-06-20 17:29:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think Alvaro was complaining that it's alone in lacking this comment:
>> /* This following index is not used for a cache and is not unique */
>>
>> But TBH, I don't think those comments are worth much. I'd rather get
>> rid of them all and instead add an Assert to the cache code enforcing
>> that any index underlying a catcache is unique. It looks like the
>> easiest place to do that is InitCatCachePhase2 --- that's the only place
>> in catcache.c that actually opens the underlying index directly.
>>
>> I'd like to also have an Assert in there that the index columns are
>> marked NOT NULL, but not sure if they actually all are marked that
>> way today.

> Sounds sensible. If they aren't marking them as such hopefully isn't
> problematic...

Experimental result from adding an Assert in CatalogCacheInitializeCache
is that it doesn't blow up :-). So we do have them all marked correctly.

regards, tom lane