Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 17:11:53 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>,
	Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dump-restore loosing 'attnotnull' bit for DEFERRABLE PRIMARY KEY
 column(s).
Message-ID: <202405141511.2c653rs3uxks@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYq=-Lq64+DOwi0TaY=rJ_OYPgNPiT7oejG-V3sbwbmjA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202405141511.2c653rs3uxks%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-May-14, Robert Haas wrote:

> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:42 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > This had already been committed as 270af6f0df76 (the day before it was
> > sent to the next commitfest).  This commit wasn't included in the
> > reverted set, though, so you still get deferrable PKs from
> > RelationGetIndexList.  I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing,
> > though these don't have any usefulness as things stand (and if we deal
> > with PKs by forcing not-null constraints to be underneath, then we won't
> > need them either).
> 
> So, are you saying this should be marked Committed in the commitfest?

Yeah.  I've done so.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Pero la cosa no es muy grave ..."     (le petit Nicolas -- René Goscinny)