Re: Support for NO INHERIT to INHERIT state change with named NOT NULL constraints

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for NO INHERIT to INHERIT state change with named NOT NULL constraints
Date: 2024-11-15 03:15:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmobhYw5=GzGUcsNvb_FtS=PT4EsA3kNNJK-Sh6WyFx=WmQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:02 AM Suraj Kharage <
suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> Alvaro stated that allowing a not null constraint state to be modified
> from INHERIT to NO INHERIT is going to be quite problematic because of the
> number of weird cases to avoid, so for now that support is not added.
>

What's the reasoning behind that restriction? What are the weird cases?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2024-11-15 03:26:17 Re: logical replication: restart_lsn can go backwards (and more), seems broken since 9.4
Previous Message Peter Smith 2024-11-15 03:06:54 Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions