| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg17 issues with not-null contraints |
| Date: | 2024-04-16 18:11:49 |
| Message-ID: | 202404161811.rv6b7vnmt3en@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Apr-15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> - Fourth thought: we do as in the third thought, except we also allow
> DROP CONSTRAINT a constraint that's marked "local, inherited" to be
> simply an inherited constraint (remove its "local" marker).
Here is an initial implementation of what I was thinking. Can you
please give it a try and see if it fixes this problem? At least in my
run of your original test case, it seems to work as expected.
This is still missing some cleanup and additional tests, of course.
Speaking of which, I wonder if I should modify pg16's tests so that they
leave behind tables set up in this way, to immortalize pg_upgrade
testing.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Fix-add-drop-of-not-null-constraints.patch | text/x-diff | 7.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2024-04-16 18:23:10 | Re: documentation structure |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-04-16 16:49:40 | Re: pg_combinebackup fails on file named INCREMENTAL.* |