Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints

From: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT NULL constraints
Date: 2025-04-04 11:54:37
Message-ID: CAGPqQf2jXkkcHzicPJD6_PjMCp1cVG-ZNtftp9cvWn6XUve9wA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Alvaro,

I’ve consolidated all the changes and attached the latest version of the
patch, which
includes the updates submitted by Jian for pg_dump as well.

Patch 0001 contains changes to MergeWithExistingConstraint to fix the
marking on local constraints.
Patch 0002 includes support for NOT NULL NOT VALID, corresponding pg_dump
changes, test cases,
and documentation updates.

Please let me know if anything is missing or needs further adjustment.

Thanks,

On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:37 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
wrote:

> On 2025-Apr-03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > It occurred to me that we will also want to have NOT NULL NOT ENFORCED
> > constraints eventually. As we have discussed elsewhere, the NOT
> > ENFORCED state is closely related to the NOT VALID state. So that
> > should probably be considered in the design here.
>
> Yeah, I don't think there's time to shoehorn NOT ENFORCED status for
> not-null constraints. I'd guess that it'd take at least a couple of
> weeks to make that work.
>
> > Reading up on this again now, I'm confused about putting the NOT VALID
> > state for not-null constraints into pg_attribute. We have catalogued
> > not-null constraints now, so we can put metadata for them into
> > pg_constraint! And we have NOT VALID and NOT ENFORCED flags in
> > pg_constraint already.
> >
> > So what is the purpose of the attnotnullvalid field? In the latest
> posted
> > patch, I don't see this column used in the executor for the actual
> > constraint checking. So is this all merely for clients to understand the
> > constraint metadata? If we add more metadata for not-null constraints,
> do
> > we need to add a new pg_attribute flag for each one? That doesn't seem
> > right.
>
> The new flag is there for quick access by get_relation_info. We could
> easily not have it otherwise, because clients don't need it, but its
> lack would probably make planning measurably slower because it'd have to
> do syscache access for every single not-null constraint to figure out if
> it's valid or not.
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland —
> https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
> "Hay quien adquiere la mala costumbre de ser infeliz" (M. A. Evans)
>

--
Rushabh Lathia

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Fix-MergeWithExistingConstraint.patch application/octet-stream 2.5 KB
0002-Support-NOT-VALID-and-VALIDATE-CONSTRAINT-for-named-.patch application/octet-stream 89.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message jian he 2025-04-04 11:55:04 Re: Change COPY ... ON_ERROR ignore to ON_ERROR ignore_row
Previous Message Álvaro Herrera 2025-04-04 11:53:11 Re: 002_pg_upgrade is broken for custom install