Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:08:10 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, 
	Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: not null constraints, again
Message-ID: <202411081308.nxj6dy2xui6a@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CACJufxHgiCo6FEMBHfbNUfZuq=K9fa8ZE51OYOMsB5sqPX78rg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202411081308.nxj6dy2xui6a%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Nov-08, jian he wrote:

> > Here's v11, which I intended to commit today, but didn't get around to.
> > CI is happy with it, so I'll probably do it tomorrow first thing.
> >
> v11 still has column_constraint versus table_constraint inconsistency.
> 
> create table t7 (a int generated by default as identity, constraint
> foo not null a no inherit, b int);
> create table t7 (a int generated by default as identity not null no
> inherit, b int);
> create table t8 (a serial, constraint foo1 not null a no inherit);
> create table t8 (a serial not null no inherit, b int);
> 
> i solved this issue at [1],

Ah yeah, that stuff.  Your commit message said it was a refactoring so I
hadn't paid too much attention to it, but it's in fact not a refactoring
at all.  I included it with a large comment explaining why we do it that
way and that we may want to remove it in the future.  I also included
these four sentences above in the tests, and pushed it after checking
that the CI results are clean.

Yesterday I verified that pg_upgrade works with the regression database
from 12 onwards.  I know the buildfarm uses a different way to do the
pg_upgrade test, so there's no way to know if it'll work ahead of time.

But we'll see what else the buildfarm has to say now that I pushed it ...

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/