From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jean Hoderd <jhoderd(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: NOT NULL with CREATE TYPE |
Date: | 2009-06-08 18:18:28 |
Message-ID: | 1244485108.21727.28.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 15:03 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> sql functions are pretty inflexible...even with recent even with
> recent advancements like varargs and default parameters they are
> designed to do a very particular thing...and insert/update tend to be
> fairly generic in how they operate.
>
I think Jean was using that as an example to show how attnotnull is
sometimes invisible to the application, and the same would be true for a
view.
For instance, let's say you have:
create table foo(i int not null);
create view foo_v1 as select i from foo where i > 5;
create view foo_v2 as select sum(i) as i from foo;
Logically speaking, foo.i is not nullable, foo_v1.i is not nullable, but
foo_v2.i _is_ nullable. The application has no good way to know that.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ioana Danes | 2009-06-08 18:25:45 | Re: Duplicate key issue in a transaction block |
Previous Message | Gerhard Wiesinger | 2009-06-08 18:09:14 | Re: Sum of multiplied deltas |