Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tender Wang <tndrwang(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: 2024-04-18 18:49:52
Message-ID: 202404181849.6frtmajobe27@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2024-Apr-13, jian he wrote:

> I wonder is there any incompatibility issue, or do we need to say something
> about the new behavior when dropping a key column?

Umm, yeah, maybe we should document it in ALTER TABLE DROP PRIMARY KEY
and in the release notes to note the different behavior.

> only minor cosmetic issue:
> + if (unconstrained_cols)
> i would like change it to
> + if (unconstrained_cols != NIL)
>
> + foreach(lc, unconstrained_cols)
> we can change to
> + foreach_int(attnum, unconstrained_cols)
> per commit
> https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=14dd0f27d7cd56ffae9ecdbe324965073d01a9ff

Ah, yeah. I did that, rewrote some comments and refined the tests a
little bit to ensure the pg_upgrade behavior is sane. I intend to get
this pushed tomorrow, if nothing ugly comes up.

CI run: https://cirrus-ci.com/build/5471117953990656

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La gente vulgar sólo piensa en pasar el tiempo;
el que tiene talento, en aprovecharlo"

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Better-handle-indirect-constraint-drops.patch text/x-diff 28.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-04-18 19:00:59 Re: Transparent column encryption
Previous Message Robert Haas 2024-04-18 18:46:10 Re: fix tablespace handling in pg_combinebackup