Re: strange IS NULL behaviour
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: strange IS NULL behaviour |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130910195200.GB16378@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: strange IS NULL behaviour (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: strange IS NULL behaviour
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:48:08PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > > 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 TABLE > > INSERT INTO test2 VALUES (null); > > ERROR: null value in column "x" violates not-null constraint > > DETAIL: Failing row contains (null). > > --> INSERT INTO test2 VALUES (row(null)); > > INSERT 0 1 > > If I remember correctly, the standard wants a NOT NULL constraint > on a column with a composite type to behave the same as > > CHECK (col IS DISTINCT FROM NULL) > > ... which is consistent with the behavior you show. Is IS DISTINCT FROM correct though? SELECT ROW(NULL) IS DISTINCT FROM NULL; ?column?---------- t(1 row) -- 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: