From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Virtual generated columns |
Date: | 2025-01-08 19:28:33 |
Message-ID: | 721f6d40-ac9b-4103-aec8-a664f9e9dc1c@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08.01.25 17:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>> On 03.12.24 15:15, jian he wrote:
>>> SELECT attrelid, attname, attgenerated FROM pg_attribute WHERE
>>> attgenerated IN ('v') and (attnotnull or not atthasdef);
>
>> I don't understand what the purpose of testing attnotnull is. That is
>> independent of attgenerated, I think.
>
> Does it make any sense to set NOT NULL on a generated column (virtual
> or otherwise, but especially virtual)? What is the system supposed
> to do if the expression evaluates to null? That concern generalizes
> to any constraint really. Even if we checked it at row storage time,
> there's no real guarantee that the expression is immutable enough
> to pass the constraint later.
The generation expression is required to be immutable. So a table
definition like
a int,
b int generated always as (a * 2) virtual,
check (b > 0)
is not very different from
a int,
check (a * 2 > 0)
in terms of the constraint execution.
The current patch does not support not-null constraints, but that's
mostly because it's not implemented yet. Maybe that's what Jian was
thinking about.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marcos Pegoraro | 2025-01-08 19:29:51 | Re: Virtual generated columns |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-01-08 19:26:15 | Re: Reorder shutdown sequence, to flush pgstats later |