Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
---|
From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | ERROR: no NOT NULL constraint found to drop |
Date: | 2023-04-10 07:16:06 |
Message-ID: | CAMbWs48astPDb3K+L89wb8Yju0jM_Czm8svmU=Uzd+WM61Cr6Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I run into error $subject with the query below:
# create table t1 (c int primary key null unique);
CREATE TABLE
# create table t2 (like t1);
CREATE TABLE
# alter table t2 alter c drop not null;
ERROR: no NOT NULL constraint found to drop
This starts since e056c557ae. I guess this shouldn't happen since the
comment says so.
/* this shouldn't happen */
elog(ERROR, "no NOT NULL constraint found to drop");
Thanks
Richard
From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ERROR: no NOT NULL constraint found to drop |
Date: | 2023-04-10 07:55:28 |
Message-ID: | ZDPA8BJ4YgZymdoY@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 03:16:06PM +0800, Richard Guo wrote:
> I run into error $subject with the query below:
>
> # create table t1 (c int primary key null unique);
> CREATE TABLE
> # create table t2 (like t1);
> CREATE TABLE
> # alter table t2 alter c drop not null;
> ERROR: no NOT NULL constraint found to drop
>
> This starts since e056c557ae. I guess this shouldn't happen since the
> comment says so.
>
> /* this shouldn't happen */
> elog(ERROR, "no NOT NULL constraint found to drop");
Thanks for the report. This is not the only issue that has been
pointed out with this patch, so it is going to be reverted if you look
around here:
/message-id/3863449.1681071102@sss.pgh.pa.us
--
Michael
From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ERROR: no NOT NULL constraint found to drop |
Date: | 2023-04-10 13:46:59 |
Message-ID: | 4031605.1681134419@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 03:16:06PM +0800, Richard Guo wrote:
>> I run into error $subject with the query below:
>> # create table t1 (c int primary key null unique);
>> CREATE TABLE
>> # create table t2 (like t1);
>> CREATE TABLE
>> # alter table t2 alter c drop not null;
>> ERROR: no NOT NULL constraint found to drop
> Thanks for the report. This is not the only issue that has been
> pointed out with this patch, so it is going to be reverted if you look
> around here:
It's still good to know about it for next time. The issue I guess is
that LIKE with no options propagates column attnotnull bits, but not
constraints, so we now have an inconsistency: t2.c has attnotnull set
but there is nothing in pg_constraint to justify it. It seems to me
we're going to have to think about what we want to happen in this
case. In a green field we'd probably not propagate NOT NULL unless
told to copy constraints ... but is it okay to break functional
compatibility with the old behavior?
regards, tom lane
From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ERROR: no NOT NULL constraint found to drop |
Date: | 2023-04-12 00:31:51 |
Message-ID: | ZDX79xxrpmbDo5vx@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 09:46:59AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's still good to know about it for next time. The issue I guess is
> that LIKE with no options propagates column attnotnull bits, but not
> constraints, so we now have an inconsistency: t2.c has attnotnull set
> but there is nothing in pg_constraint to justify it. It seems to me
> we're going to have to think about what we want to happen in this
> case. In a green field we'd probably not propagate NOT NULL unless
> told to copy constraints ... but is it okay to break functional
> compatibility with the old behavior?
I am not sure about that, TBH, though I would tend to not break
compatibility just for the sake of breaking it. Anyway, shouldn't we
have a test that does a DROP NOT NULL after a LIKE copies it? At
least, we'll be able to track that.
--
Michael