From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
Cc: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Upgrades for 6.4.1 |
Date: | 1998-12-19 23:37:59 |
Message-ID: | 199812192337.SAA13426@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> >> * SELECT DISTINCT i FROM dtest ORDER BY j generates strange output
>
> > In my simple test case, it orders by j, then only shows i. Is that
> > strange?
>
> The thing that is "strange" is that you get nonunique values of i,
> which is definitely a bit unexpected for "SELECT DISTINCT":
> I don't know whether the SQL standard defines how this combination of
> features ought to work ... but our current behavior seems fairly
> surprising...
Re-added to TODO list.
>
>
> >> * Allow constraint NULL just as we honor NOT NULL
>
> > Fundamental yacc problem with this as I recall. Gives rise to
> > shift/reduce problems since it is ambiguous with other uses of "NULL" in
> > the same area.
>
> More to the point, what possible use would a column constrained to NULL
> be? Might as well just not have it in the table...
It just says the column _may_ accept nulls. It is the default anyway.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stupor Genius | 1998-12-20 03:41:56 | RE: [HACKERS] Upgrades for 6.4.1 |
Previous Message | Clark Evans | 1998-12-19 20:31:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Upgrades for 6.4.1 |