On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:13, Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 04:15, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On fre, 2010-07-16 at 22:29 -0600, Alex Hunsaker wrote: >>> The only corner case I have run into is creating a view with what I >>> would call an implicit 'not null' constraint. Demonstration below: >>> >>> create table nn (a int4 not null, b int4, unique (a)); >>> select * from nn group by a; -- should this work? I think not? >> >> I believe I referred to this upsthread.
Yeah, I went back and reread the thread and um... yep its right where you posted patch 2. I think I read it, forgot about it and then it bubbled up to my subconscious while testing :). > Anyhow it sounds like I should try it on top of the other patch and > see if it works. I assume it might still need some fixups to work > with that other patch? Or do you expect it to just work? [ referring to the not null pg_constraint patch ] Probably no surprise to you, I tried it on top of the not null pg_constraint patch and it did not work 'out of the box'. Mainly I was curious if there was some magic going on that I did not see. In any event do you think its worth adding a regression test for this? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
