From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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 20:50:15 |
Message-ID: | 20140620205000.GX18688@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> The idea I'm toying with right now is to additionally mark as not nullable
> any column referenced in a DECLARE_UNIQUE_INDEX command in
> catalog/indexing.h. But I've not looked through that set carefully; it's
> conceivable that we actually have some indexed catalog columns that are
> allowed to be null. A possibly better solution is to invent a new macro
> that has the same semantics as DECLARE_UNIQUE_INDEX, plus forcing the
> columns to be marked NOT NULL.
I think most, if not all, the unique indexes declared are part of a
syscache. I don't think we allow those to be null, so in effect those
columns are already not nullable. Non-unique indexes in indexing.h
already bear a standard comment that they are not used for syscache.
The only exception was added recently in f01d1ae3a104019:
DECLARE_INDEX(pg_class_tblspc_relfilenode_index, 3455, on pg_class using btree(reltablespace oid_ops, relfilenode oid_ops));
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-20 21:06:34 | Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-20 19:49:11 | Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL? |