Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (pgman@s5-03.ppp.op.net [209.152.195.67]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA64301 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:14:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA25238; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:13:59 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <199911300313.WAA25238@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [SQL] NULL In-Reply-To: <19817.942713416@sss.pgh.pa.us> from Tom Lane at "Nov 15, 1999 07:50:16 pm" To: Tom Lane Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:13:59 -0500 (EST) CC: Jan Wieck , goran@kirra.net, pgsql-sql@postgreSQL.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL65 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes: > > I can't see any shift/reduce conflicts if I place a > > | NULL_P > > case into the ColConstraintElem: definition right between the > > | DEFAULT b_expr > > and > > | NOT NULL_P > > cases. Could it be that this reason is out of date? > > Could be. I remember tweaking the ColConstraint grammar to avoid > shift-reduce conflicts with NOT NULL, and it might be that that got > rid of the problem with NULL as well. > > It's still not legal under the SQL92 spec, though, and I'd hate to see > us give up anything else in order to allow a content-free NULL spec to > be added... OK, I assume we are going to dis-allow NULL as a column constraint. We could allow it but emmit a notice. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026