Re: bogus error message for ALTER TABLE ALTER CONSTRAINT

From: Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: bogus error message for ALTER TABLE ALTER CONSTRAINT
Date: 2025-03-11 04:32:33
Message-ID: CAAJ_b94QgbscAETvo7Dgq7BtCyLRSd0QLS9TRjruomVDUjJo+g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:29 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I fleshed this out more fully and I think 0001 is good enough to commit.
>

The approach looks good to me, but instead of adding a CAS_flags struct, could
we use macros like SEEN_DEFERRABILITY(bits), SEEN_ENFORCEABILITY(bits),
etc.? We can simply pass cas_bits to these macros, and to avoid the error
from processCASbits(), we can pass NULL for constrType.

Regards,
Amul

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Naga Appani 2025-03-11 05:15:28 Re: [Proposal] Expose internal MultiXact member count function for efficient monitoring
Previous Message Peter Smith 2025-03-11 04:26:06 Re: Documentation Edits for pg_createsubscriber