Re: Null records inserted

From: Stephen Davies <scldad(at)sdc(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Null records inserted
Date: 2001-03-24 08:09:34
Message-ID: 200103240809.SAA24788@mustang.sdc.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Thanks Tom.

I'm not sure how an explicit null can be being specified but it sounds
like a plausible explanation. Now off to battle with VB;-(

Cheers,
Stephen Davies

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 22:33:47 -0500, Tom Lane said:
> Stephen Davies <scldad(at)sdc(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > That is, how can a field that is defined as having a default value wind
> > up in the database as null.
>
> Via an explicit specification of a NULL field value in an INSERT.
> A default value does not override an explicit specification.
>
> > Despite the usual rules regarding null processing, I would still expect
> > a second unique primary key value of null to be rejected.
>
> If you had actually declared it as a primary key (which implies NOT
> NULL) then even one null would be disallowed. However a unique
> constraint without NOT NULL does not disallow nulls, even multiple ones.
> There's been some discussion about whether that's the correct behavior,
> but that's how it works at the moment.
>
> regards, tom lane

========================================================================
Stephen Davies Consulting scldad(at)sdc(dot)com(dot)au
Adelaide, South Australia. Voice: 08-8177 1595
Computing & Network solutions. Fax: 08-8177 0133

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-03-24 09:38:04 Re: Call for platforms
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-24 03:33:47 Re: Null records inserted