From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgresql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Behaviour of rows containg not-null domains in plpgsql |
Date: | 2008-02-24 19:07:44 |
Message-ID: | 47C1C080.40602@phlo.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
>> I just stumbled over the following behaviour, introduced with 8.3,
>> and wondered if this is by design or an oversight.
>
> No, this was in 8.2.
Ah, sorry - I'm porting an app from 8.1 straight to 8.3, and blindly
assumes that i'd have worked with 8.2...
>> If you define a domain over some existing type, constrain it to
>> non-null values, and use that domain as a field type in a table
>> definition, it seems to be impossible to declare pl/pgsql variables
>> of that table's row type. The problem seems to be that upon
>> declaration, the row variable is filled with nulls - but since the
>> domain is marked not-null, that immediatly triggers an exception.
>
> What else would you expect it to do? AFAICS any other behavior would
> be contrary to spec.
It's the inconsistency between row types (where the not-null contraint
in the table definition *doesn't* prevent a declaration like "myvar
mytable" in pl/pgsql), and domains (where the not-null constraint *does*
prevent such a declaration) that bugs me.
Plus, the fact that we don't support "default" specifications in
pl/pgsql for row types turns this inconvenience into a major PITA,
forcing you to use "record" when you know that correct type perfectly
well...
Is there some difficulty in implementing row-type defaults, or is it
just that nobody cared enough about them to do the work?
regards, Florian Pflug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-24 19:16:13 | Re: Behaviour of rows containg not-null domains in plpgsql |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-02-24 18:24:35 | Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison |