From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_subscription.subslotname is wrongly marked NOT NULL
In-reply-to: <732838.1595278439@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4118109.1595096139@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <34984.1595124581@sss.pgh.pa.us> <298837.1595196283@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <367660.1595202498@sss.pgh.pa.us> <732838.1595278439@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:53:59 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <975216.1595349762.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:42:42 -0400
Message-ID: <975217.1595349762@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> * On the other side of the ledger, if we don't fix these markings
> we cannot back-patch the additional assertions I proposed at [1].

> I'm kind of leaning to committing this as shown and back-patching
> the patch at [1], but certainly a case could be made in the other
> direction.  Thoughts?

After further thought about that I realized that the assertion patch
could be kluged in the same way as we did in llvmjit_deform.c, and
that that would really be the only safe way to do it pre-v13.
Otherwise the assertions would trip in pre-existing databases,
which would not be nice.

So what I've done is to back-patch the assertions that way, and
*not* apply BKI_FORCE_NULL in the back branches.  The possible
downsides of doing that seem to outweigh the upside of making
the catalog state cleaner in new installations.

			regards, tom lane