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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?
Date: 2014-06-20 19:34:33
Message-ID: A971FEB4-4BF3-49FD-B771-B107A15BA3B9@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Jun 20, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Some of my Salesforce colleagues are looking into making every system
> catalog be declared with a true primary key. They came across the
> fact that pg_seclabel and pg_shseclabel are declared with unique
> indexes that include the "provider" column, but that column does not
> get marked as NOT NULL during initdb. Shouldn't it be?

At some point, I inferred a rule that catalog columns were intended to be either both fixed-width and not nullable; or variable-width and nullable. I believe the current situation is the result of that inference... but I see no particular reason not to change it.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-06-20 19:49:11 Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?
Previous Message Joe Conway 2014-06-20 19:31:06 Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink