Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:07:29 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Support NOT VALID / VALIDATE constraint options for named NOT
 NULL constraints
Message-ID: <202503201107.67xlajjijvkw@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACJufxExL98QyN9C-qWYzf_RjteN7yd2hmgdMj29L90seybiDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202503201107.67xlajjijvkw%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Mar-20, jian he wrote:

> as you can see the output of `\d+ notnull_tbl1`
> That means the pg_attribute.attnotnull definition is changed.

That's correct, it changed in that way.  I propose for the new docs:

>      <row>
>       <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
>        <structfield>attnotnull</structfield> <type>bool</type>
>       </para>
>       <para>
>        This column has a not-null constraint.
>       </para></entry>
>      </row>

"This column has a possibly unvalidated not-null constraint".  The
description for the new column would say "the not-null constraint for
this column is validated" (or the opposite).  My recommendation is to
rename the other column from attinvalidnotnull (Rushabh's proposal) to
"attnotnullvalid" and invert the sense of the boolean.  I think that's
less confusing.

Thanks

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"If you want to have good ideas, you must have many ideas.  Most of them
will be wrong, and what you have to learn is which ones to throw away."
                                                         (Linus Pauling)