From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Serial and NULL values |
Date: | 1999-10-30 02:28:40 |
Message-ID: | 5277.941250520@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Offhand I don't see any fundamental reason why serial columns should
>> be restricted to be nonnull, but evidently someone did at some point.
> The actual null is not the issue. The issue is that if we have a
> SERIAL column, and we try to put a NULL in there, shouldn't it put the
> default sequence number in there?
No, I wouldn't expect that at all. A default is inserted when you
don't supply anything at all for the column. Inserting an explicit
NULL means you want a NULL, and barring a NOT NULL constraint on
the column, that's what the system ought to insert. I can see no
possible justification for creating a type-specific exception to
that behavior.
If the original asker really wants to substitute something else for
an explicit null insertion, he could do it with a rule or a trigger.
But I don't think SERIAL ought to act that way all by itself.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Theo Kramer | 1999-10-30 12:11:35 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres inode q's |
Previous Message | Brian Hirt | 1999-10-30 01:26:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Serial and NULL values |