On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 29 13:07:25 -0400 2011:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun jun 27 10:35:59 -0400 2011:
>
>> > Interesting. This whole thing requires quite a bit of rejiggering in
>> > the initial transformation phase, I think, but yeah, I see the points
>> > here and I will see to them. Does this mean that "NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY"
>> > now behaves differently? I think it does , because if you drop the PK
>> > then the field needs to continue being not null.
>>
>> Yeah, I think an implicit not-null because you made it a primary key
>> is now different from one that you write out.
>
> Actually, it wasn't that hard, but I'm not really sure I like the
> resulting code:
What don't you like about it?
My concern is that I'm not sure it's correct...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company