On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 29 13:07:25 -0400 2011: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun jun 27 10:35:59 -0400 2011: > >> > Interesting. This whole thing requires quite a bit of rejiggering in >> > the initial transformation phase, I think, but yeah, I see the points >> > here and I will see to them. Does this mean that "NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY" >> > now behaves differently? I think it does , because if you drop the PK >> > then the field needs to continue being not null. >> >> Yeah, I think an implicit not-null because you made it a primary key >> is now different from one that you write out. > > Actually, it wasn't that hard, but I'm not really sure I like the > resulting code:
What don't you like about it? My concern is that I'm not sure it's correct... -- 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
