Re: information_schema and not-null constraints
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: information_schema and not-null constraints |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwZJmP3bTkc2dRYySy2XXDdxx-xzVQu3sGd8bRtg+GcYwA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: information_schema and not-null constraints (Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: information_schema and not-null constraints
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 2:50 PM Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org> wrote:
On 9/5/23 19:15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Sep-05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Looking now at what to do for CHECK_CONSTRAINTS with domain constraints,
> I admit I'm completely confused about what this view is supposed to
> show. Currently, we show the constraint name and a definition like
> "CHECK (column IS NOT NULL)". But since the table name is not given, it
> is not possible to know to what table the column name refers to. For
> domains, we could show "CHECK (VALUE IS NOT NULL)" but again with no
> indication of what domain it applies to, or anything at all that would
> make this useful in any way whatsoever.
Constraint names are supposed to be unique per schema[1] so the view
contains the minimum required information to identify the constraint.
I'm presuming that the view constraint_column_usage [1] is an integral part of all this though I haven't taken the time to figure out exactly how we are implementing it today.
I'm not all that for either A or B since the status quo seems workable. Though ideally if the system has unique names per schema then everything should just work - having the views produce duplicated information (as opposed to nothing) if they are used when the DBA doesn't enforce the standard's requirements seems plausible.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: