Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 29 18:16:20 -0400 2011: > 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?
Scribbling on attnotnull like that seems ... kludgy (we have to walk the attr list three times: first to copy, second to reset all the attnotnull flags, third to set those of interest). The fact that we need a copy to scribble on, seems wrong as well (we weren't creating a copy before). The existing mechanisms to copy tupledescs aren't very flexible, but improving that seems overengineering to me. > My concern is that I'm not sure it's correct... Ah, well, I don't see any reason not to trust it currently. I am afraid it could easily break in the future though. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
