| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(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: | 2025-03-25 10:22:45 |
| Message-ID: | 3edc96da-fde2-4316-a767-e1fedc46ab93@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.03.25 13:56, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Mar-03, Suraj Kharage wrote:
>
>> Thanks Alvaro for the review and fixup patch.
>>
>> I agree with your changes and merged that into the main patch along with a
>> couple of other changes.
>>
>> Please find attached v6 for further review.
>
> Thanks, I have pushed this. I made some changes to the tests, first by
> renaming the tables to avoid too generic names, and second to try and
> exercise everything about once.
A patch in the NOT ENFORCED constraints patch series proposes to
refactor some of the code added by this patch series ([0] patch
v18-0001). I noticed that the code paths from this patch series do not
call InvokeObjectPostAlterHook() or CacheInvalidateRelcache() when a
constraint is altered. Was this intentional? If not, I can fix it as
part of that other patch, just wanted to check here.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2025-03-25 10:31:08 | Re: Options to control remote transactions’ access/deferrable modes in postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2025-03-25 09:52:31 | RE: Enhance 'pg_createsubscriber' to retrieve databases automatically when no database is provided. |