Re: Is this a buggy behavior? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thiemo Kellner
Subject Re: Is this a buggy behavior?
Date
Msg-id eba267a8-7945-4754-bee5-6113cac477fc@gelassene-pferde.biz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is this a buggy behavior?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Is this a buggy behavior?  (Andreas Kretschmer <andreas@a-kretschmer.de>)
Re: Is this a buggy behavior?  (Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>)
Re: Is this a buggy behavior?  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
List pgsql-general
Am 24.03.2024 um 16:17 schrieb Tom Lane:

> To do that, we'd have to remember that you'd said NULL, which we
> don't: the word is just discarded as a noise clause.  Considering
> that this usage of NULL isn't even permitted by the SQL standard,
> that seems like a bit too much work.

If I understood correctly, only the NOT NULL expression gets remembered, 
but the NULL gets discarded. No, I do not quite get it. Somehow, it has 
to be decided whether to create a "check constraint" or not, but this 
information is not available any more when creating the primary key? Not 
even in some kind of intermediary catalogue?

"Considering that this usage of NULL isn't even permitted by the SQL 
standard" is in my opinion a strange argument. To me, it is similar as 
to say, well a column has a not null constraint and that must be enough, 
we do not check whether the data complies when inserting or updating. 
Sure, my example has lots more side effect than silently do the right thing.

Please do not get me wrong. I can totally understand that something 
needs to much work to implement. I am just puzzled.



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Is this a buggy behavior?
Next
From: sud
Date:
Subject: Re: Is this a buggy behavior?