| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| 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 14:55:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYq=-Lq64+DOwi0TaY=rJ_OYPgNPiT7oejG-V3sbwbmjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-05-14 15:00:00 | Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-05-14 14:54:29 | Re: I have an exporting need... |