From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
To: Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] NULL
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:27:33 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9911301724550.13278-100000@Vessla.DoCS.UU.SE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19991130101246.B6156@wallace.ece.rice.edu>
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> My recollection of this thread was that no one found any reason to
> dis-allow NULL as a column (pseudo)constraint, other than it not being
> in the SQL92 standard. In particular, I understood Jan to say that he
That's a pretty strong reason, in absence of any other good ones. The
product is called PostgreSQL and not PostgreSybase or whatever. We
shouldn't have to follow other vendors' questionable decisions. It's not
really that hard to prepare any incompatible dumps you might have.
> tried it, and received no shift/reduce conflicts from flex. I think we
> all agree with Tom that there's no need for it, so we shouldn't give up
> anything else to get it, but several people mentioned having it easied
> porting from Sybase, or some other commercial db, where the machine
> generated DDL dumps include the NULL constraints. So, class it with the
> other compatability hacks, and include it, perhaps?
>
> Ross
>
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE, reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu
Subject: Re: [SQL] NULL
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.02A.9911301724550.13278-100000@Vessla.DoCS.UU.SE>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox