| From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgresql vs mysql |
| Date: | 2007-02-22 01:17:16 |
| Message-ID: | 45DCEF1C.3090402@cox.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/21/07 19:01, Brusser, Michael wrote:
>
>>> How would you like to use a database that has nuances like these --
>>> http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?20,141120,141120#msg-141120
>
> ---
>
>> Huh?
>> A blank string (does that mean '' or ' '?) is not NULL, so of
>> *course* it should pass the NOT NULL constraint.
>> Or am I missing something?
>
> ---
>
> I agree with you, although Oracle won't, they really blurred the line
> between the empty string and NULL.
Well that bites. We don't use NULLs a lot, but still: NULL is null,
not a blank string.
How do "they" represent NULL in a numeric field?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF3O8cS9HxQb37XmcRAgk3AJ9uB0Z0X9tUOdSgeBggC1UivekXhACgsaLr
ZVYsQ5NaFCuCwgER6mboH70=
=2arU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2007-02-22 01:42:45 | Re: postgresql vs mysql |
| Previous Message | Chris | 2007-02-22 01:16:14 | Re: postgresql vs mysql |