Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrades for 6.4.1

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upgrades for 6.4.1
Date: 1998-12-19 23:37:59
Message-ID: 199812192337.SAA13426@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> >> * SELECT DISTINCT i FROM dtest ORDER BY j generates strange output
> 
> > In my simple test case, it orders by j, then only shows i. Is that
> > strange?
> 
> The thing that is "strange" is that you get nonunique values of i,
> which is definitely a bit unexpected for "SELECT DISTINCT":
> I don't know whether the SQL standard defines how this combination of
> features ought to work ... but our current behavior seems fairly
> surprising...

Re-added to TODO list.

> 
> 
> >> * Allow constraint NULL just as we honor NOT NULL
> 
> > Fundamental yacc problem with this as I recall. Gives rise to
> > shift/reduce problems since it is ambiguous with other uses of "NULL" in
> > the same area.
> 
> More to the point, what possible use would a column constrained to NULL
> be?  Might as well just not have it in the table...

It just says the column _may_ accept nulls.  It is the default anyway.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stupor GeniusDate: 1998-12-20 03:41:56
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Upgrades for 6.4.1
Previous:From: Clark EvansDate: 1998-12-19 20:31:19
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upgrades for 6.4.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group