Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 21:23:10
Message-ID: 20140620212310.GA1795@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-06-20 16:50:15 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > 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));
>
> There's no NULLs in here. It can have duplicates, but in that it's far
> from alone.

I'm only saying it's missing the /* this index is not unique */ comment
that all other DECLARE_INDEX() lines have. Sorry I wasn't clear.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-06-20 21:29:33 Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-06-20 21:06:34 Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?