Re: [HACKERS] Re: AWL: Re: tm1

> > People may have problems with the NULL statements with some versions
> > of PostgreSQL. I have information about editing the applix macro
> > on that creates the tables my web site:
> > http://www.radix.net/~cobrien/applix/applix.txt
>
> Just in case someone cares ;)
>
> The "NULL" constraint for a column definition is not defined in SQL92,
> and is not necessary and could be dropped from Applix's definition of
> the table. The default behavior of any column defined in SQL is to
> allow NULL values.
>
> Postgres does not implement this redundant syntax extension because
> yacc-style parsers such as the one used in Postgres find the use of
> the bare NULL an ambiguous context. Presumably that is why SQL92 does
> not define it.
>
> However, I see that in a limited context, such as a bare NULL with no
> other qualifiers, yacc can handle its use. I'll add it to Postgres'
> next release...

Yes, we are hearing people use it. Seems like we could just ignore the
NULL if possible.

--
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