From: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(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)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that |
Date: | 2024-04-19 06:41:26 |
Message-ID: | CAHewXNnx0Og84CbP+mqs_1WMdO_oDz87N+K2bLoc4+SB8ogMNg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> 于2024年4月19日周五 02:49写道:
> On 2024-Apr-13, jian he wrote:
>
> > I wonder is there any incompatibility issue, or do we need to say
> something
> > about the new behavior when dropping a key column?
>
> Umm, yeah, maybe we should document it in ALTER TABLE DROP PRIMARY KEY
> and in the release notes to note the different behavior.
>
> > only minor cosmetic issue:
> > + if (unconstrained_cols)
> > i would like change it to
> > + if (unconstrained_cols != NIL)
> >
> > + foreach(lc, unconstrained_cols)
> > we can change to
> > + foreach_int(attnum, unconstrained_cols)
> > per commit
> >
> https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=14dd0f27d7cd56ffae9ecdbe324965073d01a9ff
>
> Ah, yeah. I did that, rewrote some comments and refined the tests a
> little bit to ensure the pg_upgrade behavior is sane. I intend to get
> this pushed tomorrow, if nothing ugly comes up.
>
The new patch looks good to me.
>
> CI run: https://cirrus-ci.com/build/5471117953990656
>
>
--
Tender Wang
OpenPie: https://en.openpie.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-04-19 06:55:32 | Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~? |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-04-19 06:07:07 | Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots() |