Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?
Date
Msg-id A971FEB4-4BF3-49FD-B771-B107A15BA3B9@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Some of my Salesforce colleagues are looking into making every system
> catalog be declared with a true primary key.  They came across the
> fact that pg_seclabel and pg_shseclabel are declared with unique
> indexes that include the "provider" column, but that column does not
> get marked as NOT NULL during initdb.  Shouldn't it be?

At some point, I inferred a rule that catalog columns were intended to be either both fixed-width and not nullable; or
variable-widthand nullable. I believe the current situation is the result of that inference... but I see no particular
reasonnot to change it. 

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Joe Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] Memory leak in dblink
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Shouldn't pg_(sh)seclabel.provider be marked NOT NULL?