| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that |
| Date: | 2024-03-28 09:18:38 |
| Message-ID: | 202403280918.7jasjav4emkt@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Mar-28, Tender Wang wrote:
> RemoveConstraintById() should think recurse(e.g. partition table)? I'm not
> sure now.
> If we should think process recurse in RemoveConstraintById(), the
> function will look complicated than before.
No -- this function handles just a single constraint, as identified by
OID. The recursion is handled by upper layers, which can be either
dependency.c or tablecmds.c. I think the problem you found is caused by
the fact that I worked with the tablecmds.c recursion and neglected the
one in dependency.c.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No nos atrevemos a muchas cosas porque son difíciles,
pero son difíciles porque no nos atrevemos a hacerlas" (Séneca)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-03-28 09:24:34 | Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM` |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2024-03-28 09:15:28 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |