Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that

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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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()