Re: Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011
Date: 2016-05-04 06:11:34
Message-ID: CAKFQuwY=nM7gFzg-tCGxr9xNficsM9n4c_Nak5XX+-AOFCb4AA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Monday, February 8, 2016, Vitaly Burovoy <vitaly(dot)burovoy(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

>
> 12. At the same time in (subcl. 4.13) mentioned there can be "at least
> one NNC" (may be via inheritance?).
>
>
This is a bit hard to reason about given that our implementation of
inheritance is non-standard.

Are we close to the standard semantics with regard to this particular
dynamic?

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vitaly Burovoy 2016-05-04 06:24:01 Re: Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011
Previous Message Noah Misch 2016-05-04 06:10:42 Re: Apparent race condition in standby promotion