| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: strange IS NULL behaviour |
| Date: | 2013-09-10 19:48:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1378842488.63685.YahooMailNeo@web162901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> FYI, I think these queries below prove that NOT NULL constraints do not
> follow the single-depth ROW NULL inspection rule that PL/pgSQL follows,
> and that my patch was trying to promote for queries:
>
> CREATE TABLE test2(x test NOT NULL);
> CREATE TABLE
> INSERT INTO test2 VALUES (null);
> ERROR: null value in column "x" violates not-null constraint
> DETAIL: Failing row contains (null).
> --> INSERT INTO test2 VALUES (row(null));
> INSERT 0 1
If I remember correctly, the standard wants a NOT NULL constraint
on a column with a composite type to behave the same as
CHECK (col IS DISTINCT FROM NULL)
... which is consistent with the behavior you show.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-09-10 19:52:00 | Re: strange IS NULL behaviour |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-09-10 19:43:07 | Re: strange IS NULL behaviour |