From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: NULL & NOT NULL |
Date: | 1998-12-24 14:33:18 |
Message-ID: | 4895.914509998@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>>>>>> create table authors (
>>>>>> zip char(5) null
>>>>>> );
> Sheesh. After that long song and dance about why we can't implement
> this, it turns out that it works fine. We had been trying to implement a
> slightly different syntax, "WITH NULL", which conflicted with the
> SQL92-defined data type declaration "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE".
> The "Practical SQL Handbook"-compatible form will be available in the
> next full release of Postgres. Thanks.
Now that we have the syntax problem straightened out: I'm still confused
about the semantics. Does a "NULL" constraint say that the field
*must* be null, or only that it *can* be null (in which case NULL is
just a noise word, since that's the default condition)? I had assumed
the former, but Bruce seemed to think the latter...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-12-24 15:47:27 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: NULL & NOT NULL |
Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-12-24 14:05:59 | Re: NULL & NOT NULL |