On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > So remind me ... did we discuss PRIMARY KEY constraints? Are they > supposed to show up as inherited not null rows in the child? Obviously, > they do not show up as PKs in the child, but they *are* not null so my > guess is that they need to be inherited as not null as well. (Right > now, unpatched head of course emits the column as attnotnull). > > In this case, the inherited name (assuming that the child declaration > does not explicitely state a constraint name) should be the same as the > PK, correct?
I would tend to think of the not-null-ness that is required by the primary constraint as a separate constraint, not an intrinsic part of the primary key. IOW, if you drop the primary key constraint, IMV, that should never cause the column to begin allowing nulls. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
