On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 5:07 PM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2. I don't think it's a good idea for the same patch to try to solve
>> two problems unless they are so closely related that solving one
>> without solving the other is not sensible.
>
> A NOT NULL constraint apparently is just a special case of a check constraint which seems closely related enough to
matchyour definition.
Yes, that might be true. I suppose I'd like to hear from the patch
author(s) about that. I'm somewhat coming around to your idea that
maybe both should be covered together, but I'm not the one writing the
patch.
> But I guess you are right, I was trying to say no to this patch, and yes to the not null deferral idea, without being
soexplicit and final about it.
But this, I dislike, for reasons which I'm sure you can appreciate. As
you say, people are free to choose their own development priorities. I
don't need this feature for anything either, personally, but my need
or lack of it for some particular feature doesn't define the objective
usefulness thereof. And to be honest, if I were trying to step back
from my personal needs, I'd say this seems likely to be more useful
than 75% of what's in the CommitFest. Your judgement can be different
and that's fine too, but I think the argument for calling this useless
is weak, especially given that several people have already mentioned
ways that they would like to use it.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
