Re: [HACKERS] Subselects and NOTs

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?