david.g.johnston@gmail.com wrote:
bryn@yugabyte.com wrote:
Can anybody show me an implementation of a realistic use case that follows proper practice — like "every table must a primary key", "a foreign key must refer to a primary key", and "joins may be made only "on" columns one of which has a PK constraint and the other of which has a FK constraint" — where using a not nullable data type brings a problem that wouldn't occur if the column were defined with a nullable data type and an explicit "not null" constraint?
Nothing obvious comes to mind. But frankly:
proper practice includes trying to write idiomatic code for the language you are using so others familiar with the language can learn your code more easily. You are violating this to an extreme degree.
I do not think it to be a good trade-off. SQL writers are practical people and the idioms largely avoid any downsides that the arise from SQL not being some paragon of language design.
-- "\d genres" shows "gk" with a "not null" constraint, whether I write it
-- or not. And convention seems to say "don't clutter you code by writing it".
create table genres(
gk int primary key,
gv text not null
);
"Primary Key" is defined to be the application of both UNIQUE and NOT NULL constraints...
Yes, I know what "primary key" implies. I meant only to emphasize that the source column for what the "outer join" projects has a not null constraint, that it doesn't apply to the projection of that column, that this is perfectly understandable, and that this isn't a problem. Never mind.
What part of the code that I showed (the "genres" and "books" use case) violated, to an extreme degree, what you would have wanted me to write—and in what way?
