Re: Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011
Date: 2016-05-04 14:58:30
Message-ID: 6616.1462373910@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This is a bit hard to reason about given that our implementation of
> inheritance is non-standard.

Yeah, that's a fairly key point. We've solved those problems with
respect to inherited CHECK constraints, and it seems like what we
ought to do with NOT NULL is make it work the same as CHECK, rather
than invent some new concepts.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2016-05-04 15:00:24 Re: tsvector filter problem
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-05-04 14:55:42 Re: [BUGS] Breakage with VACUUM ANALYSE + partitions