From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Erki Eessaar <erki(dot)eessaar(at)taltech(dot)ee>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL domains and NOT NULL constraint |
Date: | 2023-10-24 01:02:28 |
Message-ID: | 461950.1698109348@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, 19:34 Tom Lane, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> After ruminating on this for awhile, here's a straw-man proposal:
>> ...
> How does this work w.r.t. concurrently created tables that contain the
> domain?
It wouldn't change that at all I think. I had noticed that we'd
probably need to tweak validateDomainConstraint() to ensure it applies
the same semantics that INSERT/UPDATE do --- although with Isaac's
idea to enable better tracking of which constraints will fail on NULL,
maybe just a blind application of the constraint expression will still
be close enough.
I agree that concurrent transactions can create violations of the new
constraint, but (a) that's true now, (b) I have no good ideas about
how to improve it, and (c) it seems like an independent problem.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2023-10-24 01:16:55 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-10-24 00:50:52 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |