Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tender Wang
Subject Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that
Date
Msg-id CAHewXNnx0Og84CbP+mqs_1WMdO_oDz87N+K2bLoc4+SB8ogMNg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: Can't find not null constraint, but \d+ shows that
List pgsql-hackers


Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.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/

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots()
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?