Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: two occurrences of assign print_notnull within pg_dump.c

two occurrences of assign print_notnull within pg_dump.c

From
jian he
Date:
hi.

in src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c
within function dumpTableSchema:
there are two occurrences of:
                    print_notnull = (tbinfo->notnull_constrs[j] != NULL &&
                                     (tbinfo->notnull_islocal[j] ||
                                      dopt->binary_upgrade ||
                                      tbinfo->ispartition));


we can delete the second one.
to confirm delete the second is fine.
I did run a test, and all tests are OK.

Re: two occurrences of assign print_notnull within pg_dump.c

From
Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 4:31 PM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hi.
>
> in src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c
> within function dumpTableSchema:
> there are two occurrences of:
>                     print_notnull = (tbinfo->notnull_constrs[j] != NULL &&
>                                      (tbinfo->notnull_islocal[j] ||
>                                       dopt->binary_upgrade ||
>                                       tbinfo->ispartition));

The same commit 14e87ffa5c543b5f30ead7413084c25f7735039f modified
existing definition of print_notnull and added another. I wonder why.
- probably just an oversight or define to closer to usage. But we
don't do the latter.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat

Re: two occurrences of assign print_notnull within pg_dump.c

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
On 2025-Apr-03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 4:31 PM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > hi.
> >
> > in src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c
> > within function dumpTableSchema:
> > there are two occurrences of:
> >                     print_notnull = (tbinfo->notnull_constrs[j] != NULL &&
> >                                      (tbinfo->notnull_islocal[j] ||
> >                                       dopt->binary_upgrade ||
> >                                       tbinfo->ispartition));
> 
> The same commit 14e87ffa5c543b5f30ead7413084c25f7735039f modified
> existing definition of print_notnull and added another. I wonder why.
> - probably just an oversight or define to closer to usage. But we
> don't do the latter.

Hmm, this was probably a borked merge.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"The Gord often wonders why people threaten never to come back after they've
been told never to return" (www.actsofgord.com)