Re: strange IS NULL behaviour
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: strange IS NULL behaviour |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130910135608.GH32173@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: strange IS NULL behaviour (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: strange IS NULL behaviour
Re: strange IS NULL behaviour |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 08:45:14AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > The problem is that I don't believe this patch is commit-ready --- > > someone needs to research the IS NULL tests in all areas of our code to > > see if they match this patch, and I can't do that. Is that something a > > reviewer is going to be willing to do? I don't think I have ever seen a > > commit-fest item that still required serious research outside the patch > > area before committing. I could ask just for feedback, but I have > > already received enough feedback to know I can't get the patch to a > > ready-enough state. > > OK, well then there's probably not much point. FYI, I think these queries below prove that NOT NULL constraints do not follow the single-depth ROW NULL inspection rule that PL/pgSQL follows, and that my patch was trying to promote for queries: CREATE TABLE test2(x test NOT NULL);CREATE TABLEINSERT INTO test2 VALUES (null);ERROR: null value in column "x" violatesnot-null constraintDETAIL: Failing row contains (null). --> INSERT INTO test2 VALUES (row(null));INSERT 0 1 So, in summary, NOT NULL constraints don't inspect into ROW values for NULLs, PL/pgSQL goes one level deep into ROW, and queries go two levels deep. I am not sure what other areas need checking. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: