From: | Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya(dot)himanshu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: inconsistent behavior with "GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY" |
Date: | 2021-08-29 16:11:59 |
Message-ID: | CAPF61jCDjzrT_pFw4R1Lc9jVRmYhoGjPqGUmUCcMKBYMdHAoew@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
ok, understood.
Thanks Tom.
Regards,
Himanshu
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 7:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Himanshu Upadhyaya <upadhyaya(dot)himanshu(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > IMHO below query should replace "NULL" value for ID column with the
> > GENERATED IDENTITY value (should insert 1,10 for ID and ID1 respectively
> in
> > below's example), similar to what we expect when we have DEFAULT
> constraint
> > on the column.
>
> Why? Ordinary DEFAULT clauses do not act that way; if you specify NULL
> (or any other value) that is what you get. If you want the default
> value, you can omit the column, or write DEFAULT.
>
> > Any reason for disallowing NULL insertion?
>
> Consistency and standards compliance.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-08-29 16:47:38 | Re: Spelling change in LLVM 14 API |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-29 16:11:09 | Re: Spelling change in LLVM 14 API |