| From: | ocie(at)paracel(dot)com | 
|---|---|
| To: | maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) | 
| Cc: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, 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 18:36:27 | 
| Message-ID: | 9802201836.AA05399@dolomite.paracel.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > Added to TODO.
> > > > ... 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
> > > > In short, it would be nice if Postgres would take "null" as a type
> > > > specifier as well as "not null".
> > 
> > We currently get a shift/reduce parsing conflict on this since NULL can be
> > specified in other constraint clauses and since the constraint clauses are
> > only whitespace delimited. It might be that this part of the parser can be
> > redone, or perhaps the only way around is to restrict the ordering of the
> > constraints. But NULL constraint is not SQL92 and free ordering is...
> 
> OK, removed from TODO.
I'll look into this since I requested it.  I'll see if I can add this
without breaking everything else.
Ocie Mitchell
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shiby Thomas | 1998-02-20 18:55:29 | group by problem | 
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ | 1998-02-20 17:56:12 | AW: [HACKERS] Permissions on copy |