Thread: pgsql: Increase test coverage in RI_FKey_pk_upd_check_required()

pgsql: Increase test coverage in RI_FKey_pk_upd_check_required()

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Increase test coverage in RI_FKey_pk_upd_check_required()

This checks the case where the primary key has at least one null
column.

Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Reviewed-by: Mi Tar <mmitar@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/7ae17c95-0c99-d420-032a-c271f510112b@2ndquadrant.com/

Branch
------
master

Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/cdaf4a472776141899dfdb742c9b73581f19f59a

Modified Files
--------------
src/test/regress/expected/foreign_key.out | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
src/test/regress/sql/foreign_key.sql      | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)


Re: pgsql: Increase test coverage in RI_FKey_pk_upd_check_required()

From
"David G. Johnston"
Date:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
Increase test coverage in RI_FKey_pk_upd_check_required()

This checks the case where the primary key has at least one null
column.

Sorry if this seems pedantic but you are testing where a unique index has at least one null column value.  A primary key, per the docs, cannot contain null in any of its columns.  I read the commit message and thought maybe that had changed while I wasn’t looking...

David J.

Re: pgsql: Increase test coverage in RI_FKey_pk_upd_check_required()

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 16/01/2019 17:39, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org
> <mailto:peter@eisentraut.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Increase test coverage in RI_FKey_pk_upd_check_required()
> 
>     This checks the case where the primary key has at least one null
>     column.
> 
> 
> Sorry if this seems pedantic but you are testing where a unique index
> has at least one null column value.  A primary key, per the docs, cannot
> contain null in any of its columns.  I read the commit message and
> thought maybe that had changed while I wasn’t looking...

Yeah, it's the foreign key referencing the primary key in this case.

You are correct, the message is a bit wrong.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services