| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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: | 2013-07-04 21:06:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20130704210605.GB18471@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> My recollection of the previous discussion is that we didn't have
> consensus on what the "right" behavior is, so I'm not sure you can just
> assert that this patch is right. In any case this is only touching the
> tip of the iceberg. If we intend that rows of nulls should be null,
> then we have got issues with, for example, NOT NULL column constraint
> checks, which don't have any such recursion built into them.
FWIW if changing the behavior of NOT NULL constraints is desired, I
still have the patch to catalogue them around, if anyone wants to play
around. I haven't gotten around to finishing it up, yet :-(
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karol Trzcionka | 2013-07-05 01:22:33 | Re: GSOC13 proposal - extend RETURNING syntax |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-07-04 20:29:20 | Re: strange IS NULL behaviour |