Re: Cannot declare record members NOT NULL

From: Cultural Sublimation <cultural_sublimation(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Cannot declare record members NOT NULL
Date: 2007-09-13 12:02:10
Message-ID: 201445.51014.qm@web63413.mail.re1.yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Unfortunately for you, they are not different types. If the OCaml
> binding thinks they are, it's the binding's problem; especially since
> the binding seems to be using a completely lame method of trying to tell
> the difference.

Hi,

In OCaml and in other languages with strong type systems, "int4 never NULL"
and "int4 possibly NULL" are definitely different types. I think the source
of the problem here is that SQL has a different philosophy, one where type
constraints are not seen as creating new types.

But anyway if you think that checking pg_attribute is a lame method of
obtaining type information, what do you suggest should be done instead?
What would you do if it were you creating the bindings?

Thanks,
C.S.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Cultural Sublimation 2007-09-13 12:06:40 Re: Cannot declare record members NOT NULL
Previous Message A. Kretschmer 2007-09-13 11:16:56 Re: UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_class as NO Superuser??