Thread: Document NULL
Hi,
Over in [1] it was rediscovered that our documentation assumes the reader is familiar with NULL. It seems worthwhile to provide both an introduction to the topic and an overview of how this special value gets handled throughout the system.
Attached is a very rough draft attempting this, based on my own thoughts and those expressed by Tom in [1], which largely align with mine.
I'll flesh this out some more once I get support for the goal, content, and placement. On that point, NULL is a fundamental part of the SQL language and so having it be a section in a Chapter titled "SQL Language" seems to fit well, even if that falls into our tutorial. Framing this up as tutorial content won't be that hard, though I've skipped on examples and such pending feedback. It really doesn't fit as a top-level chapter under part II nor really under any of the other chapters there. The main issue with the tutorial is the forward references to concepts not yet discussed but problem points there can be addressed.
I do plan to remove the entity reference and place the content into query.sgml directly in the final version. It is just much easier to write an entire new section in its own file.
David J.
Attachment
On Wed, May 1, 2024, 16:13 David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,Over in [1] it was rediscovered that our documentation assumes the reader is familiar with NULL. It seems worthwhile to provide both an introduction to the topic and an overview of how this special value gets handled throughout the system.Attached is a very rough draft attempting this, based on my own thoughts and those expressed by Tom in [1], which largely align with mine.I'll flesh this out some more once I get support for the goal, content, and placement. On that point, NULL is a fundamental part of the SQL language and so having it be a section in a Chapter titled "SQL Language" seems to fit well, even if that falls into our tutorial. Framing this up as tutorial content won't be that hard, though I've skipped on examples and such pending feedback. It really doesn't fit as a top-level chapter under part II nor really under any of the other chapters there. The main issue with the tutorial is the forward references to concepts not yet discussed but problem points there can be addressed.I do plan to remove the entity reference and place the content into query.sgml directly in the final version. It is just much easier to write an entire new section in its own file.David J.
"The cardinal rule, NULL is never equal or unequal to any non-null value."
This implies that a NULL is generally equal or unequal to another NULL. While this can be true (e.g. in aggregates), in general it is not. Perhaps immediately follow it with something along the lines of "In most cases NULL is also not considered equal or unequal to any other NULL (i.e. NULL = NULL will return NULL), but there are occasional exceptions, which will be explained further on."
Regards
Thom
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 8:12 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,Over in [1] it was rediscovered that our documentation assumes the reader is familiar with NULL. It seems worthwhile to provide both an introduction to the topic and an overview of how this special value gets handled throughout the system.Attached is a very rough draft attempting this, based on my own thoughts and those expressed by Tom in [1], which largely align with mine.I'll flesh this out some more once I get support for the goal, content, and placement. On that point, NULL is a fundamental part of the SQL language and so having it be a section in a Chapter titled "SQL Language" seems to fit well, even if that falls into our tutorial. Framing this up as tutorial content won't be that hard, though I've skipped on examples and such pending feedback. It really doesn't fit as a top-level chapter under part II nor really under any of the other chapters there. The main issue with the tutorial is the forward references to concepts not yet discussed but problem points there can be addressed.I do plan to remove the entity reference and place the content into query.sgml directly in the final version. It is just much easier to write an entire new section in its own file.
Reviewed the documentation update and it's quite extensive, but I think it's better to include some examples as well.
Regards
Kashif Zeeshan
On Thu, 2 May 2024 at 03:12, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > Attached is a very rough draft attempting this, based on my own thoughts and those expressed by Tom in [1], which largelyalign with mine. Thanks for picking this up. I agree that we should have something to improve this. It would be good to see some subtitles in this e.g "Three-valued boolean logic" and document about NULL being unknown, therefore false. Giving a few examples would be good to, which I think is useful as it at least demonstrates a simple way of testing these things using a simple FROMless SELECT, e.g. "SELECT NULL = NULL;". You could link to this section from where we document WHERE clauses. Maybe another subtitle would be "GROUP BY / DISTINCT clauses with NULL values", and then explain that including some other examples using "SELECT 1 IS NOT DISTINCT FROM NULL;" to allow the reader to experiment and learn by running queries. You likely skipped them due to draft status, but if not, references back to other sections likely could do with links back to that section, e.g "amount of precipitation Hayward" is not on that page. Without that you're assuming the reader is reading the documents linearly. Another section might briefly explain about disallowing NULLs in columns with NOT NULL constraints, then link to wherever we properly document those. typo: + <title>Handling Unkowns (NULL)</title> Maybe inject "Values" after Unknown. Let's bash it into shape a bit more before going any further on actual wording. David
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
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 9:47 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
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:
Version 2 attached. Still a draft, focused on topic picking and overall structure. Examples and links planned plus the usual semantic markup stuff.
I chose to add a new sect1 in the user guide (The SQL Language) chapter, "Data". Don't tell Robert.
The "Data Basics" sub-section lets us readily slide this Chapter into the main flow and here the NULL discussion feels like a natural fit. In hindsight, the lack of a Data chapter in a Database manual seems like an oversight. One easily made because we assume if you are here you "know" what data is, but there is still stuff to be discussed, if nothing else to establish a common understanding between us and our users.
David J.
Attachment
Hi David
I reviewed the documentation and it's very detailed.
Thanks
Kashif Zeeshan
Bitnine Global
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 8:24 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 9:47 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: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:Version 2 attached. Still a draft, focused on topic picking and overall structure. Examples and links planned plus the usual semantic markup stuff.I chose to add a new sect1 in the user guide (The SQL Language) chapter, "Data". Don't tell Robert.The "Data Basics" sub-section lets us readily slide this Chapter into the main flow and here the NULL discussion feels like a natural fit. In hindsight, the lack of a Data chapter in a Database manual seems like an oversight. One easily made because we assume if you are here you "know" what data is, but there is still stuff to be discussed, if nothing else to establish a common understanding between us and our users.David J.
On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 08:23 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Version 2 attached. Still a draft, focused on topic picking and overall structure.
I'm fine with most of the material (ignoring ellipses and typos), except this:
+ The NOT NULL column constraint is largely syntax sugar for the corresponding
+ column IS NOT NULL check constraint, though there are metadata differences
+ described in create table.
I see a substantial difference there:
SELECT conname, contype,
pg_get_expr(conbin, 'not_null'::regclass)
FROM pg_constraint
WHERE conrelid = 'not_null'::regclass;
conname │ contype │ pg_get_expr
══════════════════════╪═════════╪══════════════════
check_null │ c │ (id IS NOT NULL)
not_null_id_not_null │ n │ ∅
(2 rows)
There is also the "attnotnull" column in "pg_attribute".
I didn't try it, but I guess that the performance difference will be measurable.
So I wouldn't call it "syntactic sugar".
Perhaps: The behavior of the NOT NULL constraint is like that of a check
constraint with IS NOT NULL.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 2:47 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 08:23 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > Version 2 attached. Still a draft, focused on topic picking and overall structure. > > I'm fine with most of the material (ignoring ellipses and typos), except this: > > + The NOT NULL column constraint is largely syntax sugar for the corresponding > + column IS NOT NULL check constraint, though there are metadata differences > + described in create table. > the system does not translate (check constraint column IS NOT NULL) to NOT NULL constraint, at least in domain. for example: create domain connotnull integer; alter domain connotnull add not null; \dD connotnull drop domain connotnull cascade; create domain connotnull integer; alter domain connotnull add check (value is not null); \dD
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:14 AM jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 2:47 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 08:23 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > Version 2 attached. Still a draft, focused on topic picking and overall structure.
>
> I'm fine with most of the material (ignoring ellipses and typos), except this:
>
> + The NOT NULL column constraint is largely syntax sugar for the corresponding
> + column IS NOT NULL check constraint, though there are metadata differences
> + described in create table.
>
the system does not translate (check constraint column IS NOT NULL)
to NOT NULL constraint,
at least in domain.
I'll change this but I was focusing on the fact you get identical user-visible behavior with not null and a check(col is not null). Chain of thought being we discuss the is not null operator (indirectly) already and so not null, which is syntax as opposed to an operation/expression, can leverage that explanation as opposed to getting its own special case. I'll consider this some more and maybe mention the catalog dynamics a bit as well, or at least point to them.
drop domain connotnull cascade;
create domain connotnull integer;
alter domain connotnull add check (value is not null);
\dD
This reminds me, I forgot to add commentary regarding defining a not null constraint on a domain but the domain type surviving a left join but having a null value.
David J.
On 02.05.24 17:23, David G. Johnston wrote: > Version 2 attached. Still a draft, focused on topic picking and overall > structure. Examples and links planned plus the usual semantic markup stuff. > > I chose to add a new sect1 in the user guide (The SQL Language) chapter, > "Data". Please, let's not. A stylistic note: "null" is an adjective. You can talk about a "null value" or a value "is null". These are lower-cased (or maybe title-cased). You can use upper-case when referring to SQL syntax elements (in which case also tag it with something like <literal>), and also to the C-language symbol (tagged with <symbol>). We had recently cleaned this up, so I think the rest of the documentation should be pretty consistent about this.
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:10 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
On 02.05.24 17:23, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Version 2 attached. Still a draft, focused on topic picking and overall
> structure. Examples and links planned plus the usual semantic markup stuff.
>
> I chose to add a new sect1 in the user guide (The SQL Language) chapter,
> "Data".
Please, let's not.
If a committer wants to state the single place in the documentation to put this I'm content to put it there while leaving my reasoning of choices in place for future bike-shedding. My next options to decide between are the appendix or the lead chapter in Data Types. It really doesn't fit inside DDL IMO which is the only other suggestion I've seen (and an uncertain, or at least unsubstantiated, one) and a new chapter meets both criteria Tom laid out, so long as this is framed as more than just having to document null values.
A stylistic note: "null" is an adjective. You can talk about a "null
value" or a value "is null".
Will do.
David J.
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:10 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
> wrote:
>> On 02.05.24 17:23, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>> I chose to add a new sect1 in the user guide (The SQL Language) chapter,
>>> "Data".
>> Please, let's not.
> If a committer wants to state the single place in the documentation to put
> this I'm content to put it there while leaving my reasoning of choices in
> place for future bike-shedding. My next options to decide between are the
> appendix or the lead chapter in Data Types. It really doesn't fit inside
> DDL IMO which is the only other suggestion I've seen (and an uncertain, or
> at least unsubstantiated, one) and a new chapter meets both criteria Tom
> laid out, so long as this is framed as more than just having to document
> null values.
I could see going that route if we actually had a chapter's worth of
material to put into "Data". But we don't, there's really only one
not-very-long section. Robert has justifiably complained about that
sort of thing elsewhere in the docs, and I don't want to argue with
him about why it'd be OK here.
Having said that, I reiterate my proposal that we make it a new
<sect1> under DDL, before 5.2 Default Values which is the first
place in ddl.sgml that assumes you have heard of nulls. Sure,
it's not totally ideal, but noplace is going to be entirely
perfect. I can see some attraction in dropping it under Data Types,
but (a) null is a data-type-independent concept, and (b) the
chapters before that are just full of places that assume you have
heard of nulls. Putting it in an appendix is similarly throwing
to the wind any idea that you can read the documentation in order.
Really, even the syntax chapter has some mentions of nulls.
If we did have a "Data" chapter there would be a case for
putting it as the *first* chapter of Part II.
I suppose we could address the nonlinearity gripe with a bunch
of cross-reference links, in which case maybe something under
Data Types is the least bad approach.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:44 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 7:10 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
> wrote:
>> On 02.05.24 17:23, David G. Johnston wrote:
>>> I chose to add a new sect1 in the user guide (The SQL Language) chapter,
>>> "Data".
>> Please, let's not.
> If a committer wants to state the single place in the documentation to put
> this I'm content to put it there while leaving my reasoning of choices in
> place for future bike-shedding. My next options to decide between are the
> appendix or the lead chapter in Data Types. It really doesn't fit inside
> DDL IMO which is the only other suggestion I've seen (and an uncertain, or
> at least unsubstantiated, one) and a new chapter meets both criteria Tom
> laid out, so long as this is framed as more than just having to document
> null values.
I could see going that route if we actually had a chapter's worth of
material to put into "Data". But we don't, there's really only one
not-very-long section. Robert has justifiably complained about that
sort of thing elsewhere in the docs, and I don't want to argue with
him about why it'd be OK here.
OK. I was hopeful that once the Chapter existed the annoyance of it being short would be solved by making it longer. If we ever do that, moving this section under there at that point would be an option.
Having said that, I reiterate my proposal that we make it a new
<sect1> under DDL, before 5.2 Default Values which is the first
place in ddl.sgml that assumes you have heard of nulls.
I will go with this and remove the "Data Basics" section I wrote, leaving it to be just a discussion about null values. The tutorial is the only section that really needs unique wording to fit in. No matter where we decide to place it otherwise the core content will be the same, with maybe a different section preface to tie it in.
Putting it in an appendix is similarly throwing
to the wind any idea that you can read the documentation in order.
I think we can keep the entire camel out of the tent while letting it get a whiff of what is inside. It would be a summary reference linked to from the various places that mention null values.
I suppose we could address the nonlinearity gripe with a bunch
of cross-reference links, in which case maybe something under
Data Types is the least bad approach.
Yeah, there is circularity here that is probably impossible to completely resolve.
David J.
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:44 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Having said that, I reiterate my proposal that we make it a new<sect1> under DDL, before 5.2 Default Values which is the first
place in ddl.sgml that assumes you have heard of nulls.I will go with this and remove the "Data Basics" section I wrote, leaving it to be just a discussion about null values. The tutorial is the only section that really needs unique wording to fit in. No matter where we decide to place it otherwise the core content will be the same, with maybe a different section preface to tie it in.
v3 Attached.
Probably at the 90% complete mark. Minimal index entries, not as thorough a look-about of the existing documentation as I'd like. Probably some wording and style choices to tweak. Figured better to get feedback now before I go into polish mode. In particular, tweaking and re-running the examples.
Yes, I am aware of my improper indentation for programlisting and screen. I wanted to be able to use the code folding features of my editor. Those can be readily un-indented in the final version.
The changes to func.sgml is basically one change repeated something like 20 times with tweaks for true/false. Plus moving the discussion regarding the SQL specification into the new null handling section.
It took me doing this to really understand the difference between row constructors and composite typed values, especially since array constructors produce array typed values and the constructor is just an unimportant implementation option while row constructors introduce meaningfully different behaviors when used.
My plan is to have a v4 out next week, without or without a review of this draft, but then the subsequent few weeks will probably be a bit quiet.
David J.
Attachment
On Sat, May 11, 2024, 16:34 David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:44 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Having said that, I reiterate my proposal that we make it a new<sect1> under DDL, before 5.2 Default Values which is the first
place in ddl.sgml that assumes you have heard of nulls.I will go with this and remove the "Data Basics" section I wrote, leaving it to be just a discussion about null values. The tutorial is the only section that really needs unique wording to fit in. No matter where we decide to place it otherwise the core content will be the same, with maybe a different section preface to tie it in.v3 Attached.Probably at the 90% complete mark. Minimal index entries, not as thorough a look-about of the existing documentation as I'd like. Probably some wording and style choices to tweak. Figured better to get feedback now before I go into polish mode. In particular, tweaking and re-running the examples.Yes, I am aware of my improper indentation for programlisting and screen. I wanted to be able to use the code folding features of my editor. Those can be readily un-indented in the final version.The changes to func.sgml is basically one change repeated something like 20 times with tweaks for true/false. Plus moving the discussion regarding the SQL specification into the new null handling section.It took me doing this to really understand the difference between row constructors and composite typed values, especially since array constructors produce array typed values and the constructor is just an unimportant implementation option while row constructors introduce meaningfully different behaviors when used.My plan is to have a v4 out next week, without or without a review of this draft, but then the subsequent few weeks will probably be a bit quiet.
+ The cardinal rule, a given null value is never
+ <link linkend="functions-comparison-op-table">equal or unequal</link>
+ to any other non-null.
Again, doesn't this imply it tends to be equal to another null by its omission?
Thom
On Saturday, May 11, 2024, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
Sat, May 11, 2024, 16:34 David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
My plan is to have a v4 out next week, without or without a review of this draft, but then the subsequent few weeks will probably be a bit quiet.+ The cardinal rule, a given null value is never+ <link linkend="functions-comparison-op-table">equal or unequal</link> + to any other non-null.Again, doesn't this imply it tends to be equal to another null by its omission?
I still agree, it’s just a typo now…
…is never equal or unequal to any value.
Though I haven’t settled on a phrasing I really like. But I’m trying to avoid a parenthetical.
David J.
On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 11:00 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
Though I haven’t settled on a phrasing I really like. But I’m trying to avoid a parenthetical.
Settled on this:
The cardinal rule, a null value is neither
<link linkend="functions-comparison-op-table">equal nor unequal</link>
to any value, including other null values.
<link linkend="functions-comparison-op-table">equal nor unequal</link>
to any value, including other null values.
I've been tempted to just say, "to any value.", but cannot quite bring myself to do it...
David J.
On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:33:27 -0700 "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:00 AM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 8:44 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > >> Having said that, I reiterate my proposal that we make it a new > >> > > <sect1> under DDL, before 5.2 Default Values which is the first > >> place in ddl.sgml that assumes you have heard of nulls. > > > > > > I will go with this and remove the "Data Basics" section I wrote, leaving > > it to be just a discussion about null values. The tutorial is the only > > section that really needs unique wording to fit in. No matter where we > > decide to place it otherwise the core content will be the same, with maybe > > a different section preface to tie it in. > > > > > v3 Attached. > > Probably at the 90% complete mark. Minimal index entries, not as thorough > a look-about of the existing documentation as I'd like. Probably some > wording and style choices to tweak. Figured better to get feedback now > before I go into polish mode. In particular, tweaking and re-running the > examples. > > Yes, I am aware of my improper indentation for programlisting and screen. I > wanted to be able to use the code folding features of my editor. Those can > be readily un-indented in the final version. > > The changes to func.sgml is basically one change repeated something like 20 > times with tweaks for true/false. Plus moving the discussion regarding the > SQL specification into the new null handling section. > > It took me doing this to really understand the difference between row > constructors and composite typed values, especially since array > constructors produce array typed values and the constructor is just an > unimportant implementation option while row constructors introduce > meaningfully different behaviors when used. > > My plan is to have a v4 out next week, without or without a review of this > draft, but then the subsequent few weeks will probably be a bit quiet. + A null value literal is written as unquoted, case insensitive, NULL. ...(snip)... + <programlisting> + SELECT + NULL, + pg_typeof(null), + pg_typeof(NuLl::text), + cast(null as text); + </programlisting> It may be a trivial thing but I am not sure we need to mention case insensitivity here, because all keywords and unquoted identifiers are case-insensitive in PostgreSQL and it is not specific to NULL. Also, I found the other parts of the documentation use "case-insensitive" in which words are joined with hyphen, so I wonder it is better to use the same form if we leave the description. Regards, Yugo Nagata -- Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:34 PM Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
It may be a trivial thing but I am not sure we need to mention case insensitivity
here, because all keywords and unquoted identifiers are case-insensitive in
PostgreSQL and it is not specific to NULL.
But it is neither a keyword nor an identifier. It behaves more like: SELECT 1 as one; A constant, which have no implied rules - mainly because numbers don't have case. Which suggests adding some specific mention there - and also probably need to bring up it and its "untyped" nature in the syntax chapter, probably here:
Also, I found the other parts of the documentation use "case-insensitive" in which
words are joined with hyphen, so I wonder it is better to use the same form if we
leave the description.
Typo on my part, fixed.
I'm not totally against just letting this content be assumed to be learned from elsewhere in the documentation but it also seems reasonable to include. I'm going to leave it for now.
David J.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:56:58 -0700 "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:34 PM Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: > > > > > It may be a trivial thing but I am not sure we need to mention case > > insensitivity > > here, because all keywords and unquoted identifiers are case-insensitive in > > PostgreSQL and it is not specific to NULL. > > > > But it is neither a keyword nor an identifier. It behaves more like: > SELECT 1 as one; A constant, which have no implied rules - mainly because > numbers don't have case. Which suggests adding some specific mention there Thank you for your explanation. This makes a bit clear for me why the description mentions 'string' syntax there. I just thought NULL is a keyword representing a null constant. > - and also probably need to bring up it and its "untyped" nature in the > syntax chapter, probably here: > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-syntax-lexical.html#SQL-SYNTAX-CONSTANTS-GENERIC > > > > Also, I found the other parts of the documentation use "case-insensitive" > > in which > > words are joined with hyphen, so I wonder it is better to use the same > > form if we > > leave the description. > > > > > Typo on my part, fixed. > > I'm not totally against just letting this content be assumed to be learned > from elsewhere in the documentation but it also seems reasonable to > include. I'm going to leave it for now. > > David J. -- Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:56:58 -0700
> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But it is neither a keyword nor an identifier.
The lexer would be quite surprised by your claim that NULL isn't
a keyword. Per src/include/parser/kwlist.h, NULL is a keyword,
and a fully reserved one at that.
regards, tom lane
On Tuesday, June 18, 2024, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:56:58 -0700
> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But it is neither a keyword nor an identifier.
The lexer would be quite surprised by your claim that NULL isn't
a keyword. Per src/include/parser/kwlist.h, NULL is a keyword,
and a fully reserved one at that.
Can’t it be both a value and a keyword? I figured the not null constraint and is null predicates are why it’s a keyword but the existence of those doesn’t cover its usage as a literal value that can be stuck anywhere you have an expression.
David J.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 23:02:14 -0700 "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 18, 2024, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> writes: > > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 20:56:58 -0700 > > > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> But it is neither a keyword nor an identifier. > > > > The lexer would be quite surprised by your claim that NULL isn't > > a keyword. Per src/include/parser/kwlist.h, NULL is a keyword, > > and a fully reserved one at that. > > > > > > > > Can’t it be both a value and a keyword? I figured the not null constraint > and is null predicates are why it’s a keyword but the existence of those > doesn’t cover its usage as a literal value that can be stuck anywhere you > have an expression. I still wonder it whould be unnecessary to mention the case-insensitivity here if we can say NULL is *also* a keyword. Regards, Yugo Nagata > David J. -- Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:14 PM Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
I still wonder it whould be unnecessary to mention the case-insensitivity here
if we can say NULL is *also* a keyword.
I went with wording that includes mentioning its keyword status.
The attached are complete and ready for review. I did some file structure reformatting at the end and left that as the second patch. The first contains all of the content.
I'm adding this to the commitfest.
Thanks!
David J.