Re: Document NULL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Document NULL
Date
Msg-id 2074118.1714625223@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Document NULL  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Document NULL
List pgsql-hackers
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> Let's bash it into shape a bit more before going any further on actual wording.

FWIW, I want to push back on the idea of making it a tutorial section.
I too considered that, but in the end I think it's a better idea to
put it into the "main" docs, for two reasons:

1. I want this to be a fairly official/formal statement about how we
treat nulls; not that it has to be written in dry academic style or
whatever, but it has to be citable as The Reasons Why We Act Like That,
so the tutorial seems like the wrong place.

2. I think we'll soon be cross-referencing it from other places in the
docs, even if we don't actually move existing bits of text into it.
So again, cross-ref'ing the tutorial doesn't feel quite right.

Those arguments don't directly say where it should go, but after
surveying things a bit I think it could become section 5.2 in
ddl.sgml, between "Table Basics" and "Default Values".  Another
angle could be to put it after "Default Values" --- except that
that section already assumes you know what a null is.

I've not read any of David's text in detail yet, but that's my
two cents on where to place it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Document NULL
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioned tables and [un]loggedness