From: | Robson Paniago de Miranda <robson(at)mpdft(dot)gov(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | ocie(at)paracel(dot)com, vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su, meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de, Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Subselects and NOTs |
Date: | 1998-02-20 16:51:22 |
Message-ID: | 34EDB48A.9A6078DA@mpdft.gov.br |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I think my original patch about NOT NULL constraint allows this type of
construction. However, thinks have changed in the parser since I made
this patch, and now seems that a construction like
CREATE TABLE a (b int constraint not_null NOT NULL)
is now valid (I only saw gram.y - maybe I'm wrong). I can make the
patches to allow NULL, but I only want a litte help: is the name of this
type of constraint beeing saved anywere?
Robson.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Added to TODO.
>
> > Here's my output. BTW, this reminds me of a small request (perhaps I
> > will write a patch for it myself). In Postgres, a column can be
> > designated "not null", the default being to allow nulls. In the
> > default Sybase configuration, it is the other way around. In the
> > interest of writing cross database compatible code, I try to always
> > call out columns as either "null" (nulls allowed), or "not null"
> > (nulls not allowed). Unfortunately, Postgres does not support this
> > (Please forgive me if this has been added recently, as I have been too
> > busy to try out the latest code).
> >
> > In short, it would be nice if Postgres would take "null" as a type
> > specifier as well as "not null".
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian
> maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-02-20 16:51:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Subselects and NOTs |
Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-02-20 16:44:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Recursive queries? |