Bernd Helmle writes:
> What i can try is to record the inheritance information only in case of
> attinhcount > 0. This would make maintenance of the pg_constraint records
> for NOT NULL columns a little complicater though. Another thing we should
> consider is that Peter's functional dependency
--On 26. September 2010 15:50:06 -0400 Tom Lane wrote:
I think his question was - how do we feel about the massive catalog
bloat this patch will create?
It's a fair question.
I can imagine designing things so that we don't create an explicit
pg_constraint row for the simplest case of an un
Robert Haas writes:
> I think his question was - how do we feel about the massive catalog
> bloat this patch will create?
It's a fair question.
I can imagine designing things so that we don't create an explicit
pg_constraint row for the simplest case of an unnamed, non-inherited
NOT NULL constra
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On 25. September 2010 19:55:02 -0300 José Arthur Benetasso Villanova
> wrote:
>
>> One thing that I take notice is when you create a simple table like this
>> one: select count(*) from pg_constraint ; 12 rows appears in
>> pg_constraint, 10
--On 25. September 2010 19:55:02 -0300 José Arthur Benetasso Villanova
wrote:
One thing that I take notice is when you create a simple table like this
one: select count(*) from pg_constraint ; 12 rows appears in
pg_constraint, 10 to the sequence. Is that ok?
Not sure i get you here, can y
Hi all.
My name is Jose Arthur and I use PostgreSQL for a while, but never
contributed to the main project, until now.
Since nobody else take this patch to review in this commitfest, I'm going to
try :-). The main problem can be found here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg
