| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2011-06-29 22:16:20 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTin0KyhrXxV_31mG7L-r9rRfg5JtMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 29 13:07:25 -0400 2011:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun jun 27 10:35:59 -0400 2011:
>
>> > Interesting. This whole thing requires quite a bit of rejiggering in
>> > the initial transformation phase, I think, but yeah, I see the points
>> > here and I will see to them. Does this mean that "NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY"
>> > now behaves differently? I think it does , because if you drop the PK
>> > then the field needs to continue being not null.
>>
>> Yeah, I think an implicit not-null because you made it a primary key
>> is now different from one that you write out.
>
> Actually, it wasn't that hard, but I'm not really sure I like the
> resulting code:
What don't you like about it?
My concern is that I'm not sure it's correct...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-06-29 22:42:19 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-06-29 21:44:53 | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system |