From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints |
Date: | 2011-08-07 09:43:52 |
Message-ID: | 1312710232.24721.19.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On lör, 2011-08-06 at 12:58 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> Right now \d gives:
>
> Table "public.foo"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------+---------+-----------
> a | integer | not null
> b | integer |
> c | integer |
> Check constraints:
> "foo_b_check" CHECK (b IS NOT NULL)
> "foo_c_check" CHECK (NOT c IS NULL)
>
> With this approach, one change would be that you'd gain an extra "not
> null" in the Modifiers column for "b".
>
> But how many CHECK constraints would show? I guess it would show 3,
> although it could be changed to just show 1. But it certainly couldn't
> continue to show 2, since nothing in the catalogs could distinguish
> the constraints on "a" from those on "b".
I'd say we would show all (what is currently known as) NOT NULL
constraints under "Check constraints:".
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-08-07 11:24:10 | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2011-08-07 09:25:12 | Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API |