| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Geery <andrew(dot)geery(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |
| Date: | 2011-06-24 23:01:49 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTikd5DpCPYfE5ey__ZXQ6EGZ_FNgyw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> So remind me ... did we discuss PRIMARY KEY constraints? Are they
> supposed to show up as inherited not null rows in the child? Obviously,
> they do not show up as PKs in the child, but they *are* not null so my
> guess is that they need to be inherited as not null as well. (Right
> now, unpatched head of course emits the column as attnotnull).
>
> In this case, the inherited name (assuming that the child declaration
> does not explicitely state a constraint name) should be the same as the
> PK, correct?
I would tend to think of the not-null-ness that is required by the
primary constraint as a separate constraint, not an intrinsic part of
the primary key. IOW, if you drop the primary key constraint, IMV,
that should never cause the column to begin allowing nulls.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Christensen | 2011-06-24 23:11:56 | Re: Deriving release notes from git commit messages |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-24 22:39:08 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |