| From: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: information_schema and not-null constraints |
| Date: | 2023-09-05 23:35:24 |
| Message-ID: | 091fee86-6878-8791-574d-8497e79beb82@postgresfriends.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/6/23 00:14, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> I'm not all that for either A or B since the status quo seems workable.
Pray tell, how is it workable? The view does not identify a specific
constraint because we don't obey the rules on one side and we do obey
the rules on the other side. It is completely useless and unworkable.
> Though ideally if the system has unique names per schema then everything
> should just work - having the views produce duplicated information (as
> opposed to nothing) if they are used when the DBA doesn't enforce the
> standard's requirements seems plausible.
Let us not engage in victim blaming. Postgres is the problem here.
--
Vik Fearing
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michail Nikolaev | 2023-09-05 23:56:16 | Re: Replace known_assigned_xids_lck by memory barrier |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-09-05 22:20:53 | Re: sandboxing untrusted code |