| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dump-restore loosing 'attnotnull' bit for DEFERRABLE PRIMARY KEY column(s). |
| Date: | 2024-05-14 15:11:53 |
| Message-ID: | 202405141511.2c653rs3uxks@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-May-14, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:42 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> > This had already been committed as 270af6f0df76 (the day before it was
> > sent to the next commitfest). This commit wasn't included in the
> > reverted set, though, so you still get deferrable PKs from
> > RelationGetIndexList. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing,
> > though these don't have any usefulness as things stand (and if we deal
> > with PKs by forcing not-null constraints to be underneath, then we won't
> > need them either).
>
> So, are you saying this should be marked Committed in the commitfest?
Yeah. I've done so.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Pero la cosa no es muy grave ..." (le petit Nicolas -- René Goscinny)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-14 15:17:43 | Re: Dump-restore loosing 'attnotnull' bit for DEFERRABLE PRIMARY KEY column(s). |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-05-14 15:09:39 | Re: broken JIT support on Fedora 40 |