Re: Document NULL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Document NULL
Date: 2024-05-02 04:47:03
Message-ID: 2074118.1714625223@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Let's bash it into shape a bit more before going any further on actual wording.

FWIW, I want to push back on the idea of making it a tutorial section.
I too considered that, but in the end I think it's a better idea to
put it into the "main" docs, for two reasons:

1. I want this to be a fairly official/formal statement about how we
treat nulls; not that it has to be written in dry academic style or
whatever, but it has to be citable as The Reasons Why We Act Like That,
so the tutorial seems like the wrong place.

2. I think we'll soon be cross-referencing it from other places in the
docs, even if we don't actually move existing bits of text into it.
So again, cross-ref'ing the tutorial doesn't feel quite right.

Those arguments don't directly say where it should go, but after
surveying things a bit I think it could become section 5.2 in
ddl.sgml, between "Table Basics" and "Default Values". Another
angle could be to put it after "Default Values" --- except that
that section already assumes you know what a null is.

I've not read any of David's text in detail yet, but that's my
two cents on where to place it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-05-02 06:06:51 Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness
Previous Message David Rowley 2024-05-02 04:15:47 Re: Document NULL