Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 11:25:53 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump does not dump domain not-null constraint's comments
Message-ID: <202505070925.4wymawhqsuvm@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACJufxF-0bqVR=j4jonS6N2Ka6hHUpFyu3_3TWKNhOW_4yFSSg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202505070925.4wymawhqsuvm%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-May-07, jian he wrote:

> in PG17 and master, pg_dump (--schema=test --no-owner)
> [...]
> didn't produce
> COMMENT ON CONSTRAINT nn ON DOMAIN test.d1 IS 'not null constraint on
> domain d1';
> we should make pg_dump to produce it too?

Yes, this is clearly a pg17 bug whose fix should be backpatched.

> The attached patch tries to make it produce comments on not-null
> constraints on domains.

Thanks, I'll have a look.

> I aslo renamed struct TypeInfo fields, nDomChecks will be renamed to
> nDomConstrs; domChecks will be renamed to domConstrs.
> TypeInfo->domConstrs will also include not-null constraint
> information, changing from domChecks to domConstrs makes sense, IMHO.

Hmm, for a backpatch I would leave the field names alone since they are
publicly visible; we can rename separately in pg19 once it opens.  Can
you resubmit splitting the renaming out to a 0002 patch?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"In fact, the basic problem with Perl 5's subroutines is that they're not
crufty enough, so the cruft leaks out into user-defined code instead, by
the Conservation of Cruft Principle."  (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 6)