Re: [HACKERS] Re: NULL & NOT NULL

> "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> >>>>>> create table authors (
> >>>>>> zip char(5) null
> >>>>>> );
>
> > Sheesh. After that long song and dance about why we can't implement
> > this, it turns out that it works fine. We had been trying to implement a
> > slightly different syntax, "WITH NULL", which conflicted with the
> > SQL92-defined data type declaration "TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE".
>
> > The "Practical SQL Handbook"-compatible form will be available in the
> > next full release of Postgres. Thanks.
>
> Now that we have the syntax problem straightened out: I'm still confused
> about the semantics. Does a "NULL" constraint say that the field
> *must* be null, or only that it *can* be null (in which case NULL is
> just a noise word, since that's the default condition)? I had assumed
> the former, but Bruce seemed to think the latter...

Can be null. Noise word. At least that is what I rememeber Thomas
saying, and because it was noise, we removed it. In fact, it doesn't
look like the standard accepts it, but there is no reason we can't.

--
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