Message-Id: <m11njOy-0003kLC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de>
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Subject: Re: [SQL] NULL
To: jose@sferacarta.com (jose soares)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:16:08 +0100 (MET)
Cc: bruce@cenderis.demon.co.uk, pgsql-sql@postgreSQL.org
Reply-To: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
In-Reply-To: <38315E00.4CDB885F@sferacarta.com> from "jose soares" at Nov 16,
	99 02:37:05 pm
Content-Type: text

> > > It suppose to mean that NULLs are explicitly allowed in
> > > this field.
> > > Is this required by SQL-92?
> >
> > No, it's not required.  This came up before with the examples from
> > "The Practical SQL Handbook".  It would be nice to allow it, but there
> > was some reason why to do so would be non-trivial, which I forget.
> > Anyway, it's not in SQL-92.
> >
> Sorry, I don't understand why we need this feature. This is completely ou=
> t
> of standard.
>
> What's that mean ?
>
> -  Is it a constraint to allow only NULL values ?  (unuseful)

    Useless? I NEED IT - URGENT - NOW - YESTERDAY.

    Then  I  could  create my tables with all required fields for
    the future, but prevent that  someone  stores  data  in  them
    until I drop the constraint.

    I vote for this :-)


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #