Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23489F9398 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:57:30 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53964-03 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:57:00 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from mail.logix-tt.com (mail.logix-tt.com [212.211.145.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8FE9F9386 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:57:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (84-72-188-217.dclient.hispeed.ch [84.72.188.217]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B0864BFA for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:00:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06585EB92 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:57:03 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:57:03 +0100 From: Markus Schaber To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: null values in non-nullable column Message-ID: <20061219155703.21a101a4@kingfisher.sec.intern.logix-tt.com> In-Reply-To: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A8661E3FC@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net> References: <8C5B026B51B6854CBE88121DBF097A8661E3FC@ehost010-33.exch010.intermedia.net> Organization: www.logix-tt.com X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/135 X-Sequence-Number: 27091 Hi, George, "George Pavlov" wrote: > In 8.1 I have a situation where nullability of user defined datatypes > does not seem to be enforced. Using the following steps I end up with a > table that has a column that should not be nullable, but has nulls in > it. Ouch. That hurts! Now all those MySQL freaks can argue "Well, PostgreSQL does allow constraint violation, too.", despite the fact that most of them don't even basically understand the special case we have here. So, please, keep silent about it :-) How difficult is it to fix this (e. G. by disallowing NULL-generating JOINs on NOT NULL domains?) Regards, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org