Re: pg17 issues with not-null contraints

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg17 issues with not-null contraints
Date: 2024-04-30 18:52:58
Message-ID: ZjE-CqULOywtc2dd@pryzbyj2023
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 01:52:02PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 12:52 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm not totally clear on what's intended in v17 - maybe it'd be dead
> > code, and maybe it shouldn't even be applied to master branch. But I do
> > think it's worth patching earlier versions (even though it'll be less
> > useful than having done so 5 years ago).
>
> This thread is still on the open items list, but I'm not sure whether
> there's still stuff here that needs to be fixed for the current
> release. If not, this thread should be moved to the "resolved before
> 17beta1" section. If so, we should try to reach consensus on what the
> remaining issues are and what we're going to do about them.

I think the only thing that's relevant for v17 is this:

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:11:49PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Speaking of which, I wonder if I should modify pg16's tests so that they
> leave behind tables set up in this way, to immortalize pg_upgrade testing.

The patch on the other thread for pg_upgrade --check is an old issue
affecting all stable releases.

--
Justin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Cary Huang 2024-04-30 19:10:12 Re: Support tid range scan in parallel?
Previous Message Christophe Pettus 2024-04-30 17:57:28 Control flow in logical replication walsender