On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 05:08:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > >> On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > >>> After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and > >>> FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be specified with COPY on the same column. > > > >> Strictly they are not actually contradictory, since FORCE NULL relates > >> to quoted null strings and FORCE NOT NULL relates to unquoted null > >> strings. Arguably the docs are slightly loose on this point. Still, > >> applying both FORCE NULL and FORCE NOT NULL to the same column would be > >> rather perverse, since it would result in a quoted null string becoming > >> null and an unquoted null string becoming not null. > > > > Given the remarkable lack of standardization of "CSV" output, who's > > to say that there might not be data sources out there for which this > > is the desired behavior? It's weird, I agree, but I think throwing > > an error for the combination is not going to be helpful. It's not > > like somebody might accidentally write both on the same column. > > > > +1 for clarifying the docs, though, more or less in the words you > > used above. > Following that, I have hacked the patch attached to update the docs > with an additional regression test (actually replaces a test that was > the same as the one before in copy2). > > I am attaching as well a second patch for file_fdw, to allow the use > of force_null and force_not_null on the same column, to be consistent > with COPY. > Regards,
Correction, this is the patch applied, not the earlier version.
