Re: [HACKERS] Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)

> >I did not claim to have the final form; I ran out of time before
> >heading out on vacation.
> In retrospect, it shouldn't've gone into the beta at that point,
> then. Crippling "unique not null" isn't merely an inconvenience.
> Dropping a bomb like this into beta the night before release
> and leaving town for nine days perhaps wasn't the best thing to
> do. Perhaps we should avoid doing things like this in the future.

Lighten up Don! I put this in so Jan et al can get cracking on the
referential integrity stuff in the column specification, and imho the
feature and space of possible solutions is isolated and finite. Not a
big risk for the first part of beta.

<snip>
> What's wrong with actually accepting the SQL92 grammar, anyway?

?? That is what we are trying to do.

I'm not sure what your point is about "having to ship 6.5 instead of
7.0" for your porting project. If you aren't willing to cope with
small changes/features/breakage in a beta cycle you should stay away
from betas.

There is *no* reason you should think that the restriction on syntax
in this area is a permanent feature or something that will persist
through beta. If you are on such a tight schedule that you can't cope
with a 2 week slip in a feature, or a 2 week breakage from your PoV,
then beta isn't for you!!

otoh, if you are planning on shipping after the 7.0 release, then
there isn't a problem. And if you need a system which has *exactly*
the behaviors of a couple of weeks ago, then use a snapshot from a
couple of weeks ago. I'll prep and send you one if you would like.

Regards.

- Thomas

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California