From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kenneth Gonsalves <lawgon(at)thenilgiris(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: replacing mysql enum |
Date: | 2004-12-11 16:45:19 |
Message-ID: | 20041211084434.F34106@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 07:47 -0800, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Ian Barwick wrote:
> >
> > > (Oddly enough, putting the NULL in the CHECK constraint seems
> > > to make the constraint worthless:
> > > test=> create table consttest (field varchar(2) check (field in
> > > (null, 'a','b','c')));
> > > CREATE TABLE
> > > test=> insert into consttest values ('xx');
> > > INSERT 408080 1
> > > test=> SELECT * from consttest ;
> > > field
> > > -------
> > > xx
> > > (1 row)
> > >
> > > Not sure what logic is driving this).
> >
> > The way NULL is handled in IN (because it's effectively an equality
> > comparison). Unless I miss-remember the behavior, foo in (NULL, ...) can
> > never return false and constraints are satisified unless the search
> > condition returns false for some row. I think this means you need the
> > more verbose (field is null or field in ('a','b','c'))
>
> Actually, he just needs check(field in ('a', 'b', 'c')). NULL is
> accepted unless explicitly denied (NOT NULL constraint or an IS NOT NULL
> check).
Right. For the same reason, even. Really need to stop answering
messages before I wake up. :)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2004-12-11 17:06:08 | Re: replacing mysql enum |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-12-11 16:35:01 | Re: replacing mysql enum |