From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Support for NO INHERIT to INHERIT state change with named NOT NULL constraints |
Date: | 2025-01-08 09:47:48 |
Message-ID: | 202501080947.upnia6ptv4dm@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-Nov-25, Robert Haas wrote:
> In a simple implementation of ALTER TABLE this would be true, but I
> don't see why it should need to be true in ours. It should be possible
> to notice that there's an existing NOT NULL constraint and use that as
> evidence that the new one can be added without needing to revalidate
> the table contents. ALTER TABLE does similar things already. For
> instance, TryReuseIndex() can attempt to attach an existing index file
> to a new index definition without rebuilding it; TryReuseForeignKey
> can attempt to re-add a foreign key constraint without needing to
> revalidate it. But even more to the point, ATAddCheckNNConstraint and
> MergeWithExistingConstraint know about merging a newly-added
> constraint with a preexisting one without needing to revalidate the
> table.
I think you're explaining why we need this patch, which seems a bit
useless in the thread where this patch was posted.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2025-01-08 09:50:17 | Re: IANA timezone abbreviations versus timezone_abbreviations |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2025-01-08 09:38:53 | Re: Adding OLD/NEW support to RETURNING |