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
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? |