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
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?? |