Re: SET NULL / SET NOT NULL

From: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SET NULL / SET NOT NULL
Date: 2002-03-22 19:00:37
Message-ID: 20020322190037.GA15540@rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 01:12:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Also I agree with Fernando that trying to make the word COLUMN optional
> is likely to lead to conflicts.

According to the docs, COLUMN is _already_ optional at that point.
Are the changes past that point going to cause different problems? Boy,
parsers make my brain hurt.

BTW, is NULLABLE so ugly that no one wanted to comment on it? It _is_
an sql92 reserved keyword, and it's actual english grammar.

Ross

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-03-22 19:04:19 Re: Use of PG_BINARY_R and "r"
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-03-22 18:43:32 Use of PG_BINARY_R and "r"