> 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 Could it be that this reason is out of date?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,
Pennsylvania19026
