Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Subject | Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20230815101532.5qffiy5sjh5bitiz@alvherre.pgsql Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-Aug-15, Dean Rasheed wrote: > I think perhaps for ALTER TABLE INHERIT, it should check that the > child has a NOT NULL constraint, and error out if not. That's the > current behaviour, and also matches other constraints types (e.g., > CHECK constraints). Yeah, I reached the same conclusion yesterday while trying it out, so that's what I implemented. I'll post later today. > More generally though, I'm worried that this is starting to get very > complicated. I wonder if there might be a different, simpler approach. > One vague idea is to have a new attribute on the column that counts > the number of constraints (local and inherited PK and NOT NULL > constraints) that make the column not null. Hmm. I grant that this is different, but I don't see that it is simpler. > Something else I noticed when reading the SQL standard is that a > user-defined CHECK (col IS NOT NULL) constraint should be recognised > by the system as also making the column not null (setting its > "nullability characteristic" to "known not nullable"). I agree with this view actually, but I've refrained from implementing it(*) because our SQL-standards people have advised against it. Insider knowledge? I don't know. I think this is a comparatively smaller consideration though, and we can adjust for it afterwards. (*) Rather: at some point I removed the implementation of that from the patch. > I'm also wondering whether creating a pg_constraint entry for *every* > not-nullable column is actually going too far. If we were to > distinguish between "defined as NOT NULL" and being not null as a > result of one or more constraints, in the way that the standard seems > to suggest, perhaps the former (likely to be much more common) could > simply be a new attribute stored on the column. I think we actually > only need to create pg_constraint entries if a constraint name or any > additional constraint properties such as NOT VALID are specified. That > would lead to far fewer new constraints, less catalog bloat, and less > noise in the \d output. There is a problem if we do this, though, which is that we cannot use the constraints for the things that we want them for -- for example, remove_useless_groupby_columns() would like to use unique constraints, not just primary keys; but it depends on the NOT NULL rows being there for invalidation reasons (namely: if the NOT NULL constraint is dropped, we need to be able to replan. Without catalog rows, we don't have a mechanism to let that happen). If we don't add all those redundant catalog rows, then this is all for naught. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ Bob [Floyd] used to say that he was planning to get a Ph.D. by the "green stamp method," namely by saving envelopes addressed to him as 'Dr. Floyd'. After collecting 500 such letters, he mused, a university somewhere in Arizona would probably grant him a degree. (Don Knuth)
pgsql-hackers by date: