Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:24:18 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: not null constraints, again
Message-ID: <202504161224.xedjghsndf7w@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHewXNn5nExR5vm7bRbM55+TME56-pc_yiXdLDtVmOiJ8E1teA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202504161224.xedjghsndf7w%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Apr-16, Tender Wang wrote:

> if (conForm->contype != CONSTRAINT_NOTNULL)
>     elog(ERROR, "constraint %u is not a not-null constraint", conForm->oid);
> 
> I feel that using conForm->conname is more friendly than oid for users.

Yeah, this doesn't really matter because this function would not be
called with any other kind of constraint anyway.  This test could just
as well be an Assert() ... I was pretty torn about that choice TBH (I
still am).

> Others look good for me.

Thanks for looking!

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"No renuncies a nada. No te aferres a nada."