| From: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: not null constraints, again |
| Date: | 2024-09-20 08:27:28 |
| Message-ID: | CACJufxErXw2XVf9M-vb+Z1nzYOXD7UeNcQyzMqo3Qo7D-Wvppw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
about set_attnotnull.
we can make set_attnotnull look less recursive.
instead of calling find_inheritance_children,
let's just one pass, directly call find_all_inheritors
overall, I think it would be more intuitive.
please check the attached refactored set_attnotnull.
regress test passed, i only test regress.
I am also beginning to wonder if ATExecSetNotNull inside can also call
find_all_inheritors.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| scratch40.c | text/x-csrc | 2.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2024-09-20 08:48:11 | Re: Why don't we consider explicit Incremental Sort? |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2024-09-20 08:10:03 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |