Re: BUG #17720: pg_dump creates a dump with primary key that cannot be restored, when specifying 'using index ...'
От | Daniel Gustafsson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17720: pg_dump creates a dump with primary key that cannot be restored, when specifying 'using index ...' |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 36765FCD-2CE4-40C2-80D3-7A7076B68DB1@yesql.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17720: pg_dump creates a dump with primary key that cannot be restored, when specifying 'using index ...' (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
> On 14 Dec 2022, at 16:37, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: >> On 14 Dec 2022, at 13:54, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There is a decent chance that the fix here is to prohibit doing what you did here - a PK cannot contain nulls in anyof its columns so indeed choosing an index that specifies how nulls behave is non-sensical. That said, it also doesn’thurt so long as the column itself is indeed not null. But extending the syntax doesn’t seem that appealing. > >> Even if we prohibit this, there is still the case of all existing systems which >> can't be dumped. I wonder if the solution is to teach pg_dump to not create >> NULLS NOT DISTINCT primary key constraints? The simple attached fix creates a >> valid PK constraint on the above schema. > > It doesn't make sense for pg_dump to editorialize on a schema that > we otherwise consider valid; people would rightfully complain that > dump/restore changed things. So we need to do both things: prohibit > adopting such an index as a PK constraint (but I guess it's okay > for plain unique constraints?), and adjust pg_dump to compensate > for the legacy case where it was already done. Agreed, I'll expand the patch. -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: