Re: [HACKERS] Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

2016-05-04 Thread Tom Lane
"David G. Johnston" writes: > This is a bit hard to reason about given that our implementation of > inheritance is non-standard. Yeah, that's a fairly key point. We've solved those problems with respect to inherited CHECK constraints, and it seems like what we ought

Re: [HACKERS] Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

2016-05-04 Thread Vitaly Burovoy
On 5/3/16, Tom Lane wrote: > Vitaly Burovoy writes: >> On 4/27/16, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Point 2 is where things differ from what I remember; my (possibly >>> flawed) understanding was that there's no difference between

Re: [HACKERS] Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

2016-05-04 Thread David G. Johnston
On Monday, February 8, 2016, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > > 12. At the same time in (subcl. 4.13) mentioned there can be "at least > one NNC" (may be via inheritance?). > > This is a bit hard to reason about given that our implementation of inheritance is non-standard. Are

Re: [HACKERS] Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

2016-05-03 Thread David G. Johnston
Quick flyby here... On Tuesday, May 3, 2016, Tom Lane wrote: > Vitaly Burovoy > writes: > > On 4/27/16, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > >> Point 2 is where things differ from what I remember; my

Re: [HACKERS] Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

2016-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
Vitaly Burovoy writes: > On 4/27/16, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Point 2 is where things differ from what I remember; my (possibly >> flawed) understanding was that there's no difference between those >> things. Many (maybe all) of the things

Re: [HACKERS] Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

2016-05-03 Thread Vitaly Burovoy
I'm sorry for the late answer. On 4/27/16, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > > Hi, > >> But before starting working on it I had a look at the SQL-2011 >> standard (ISO/IEC 9075-2)[3] and found that: >> >> 1. A name for a "NOT NULL" constraint can be given

Re: [HACKERS] Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

2016-04-27 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Vitaly Burovoy wrote: Hi, > But before starting working on it I had a look at the SQL-2011 > standard (ISO/IEC 9075-2)[3] and found that: > > 1. A name for a "NOT NULL" constraint can be given by a table > definition (subcl. 11.4, "Format"->"column constraint definition"). > 2. The standard

Re: [HACKERS] Make PG's "NOT NULL"s and attnotnull ("is_nullable") conform to SQL-2011

2016-02-08 Thread Vitaly Burovoy
On 2/7/16, Vitaly Burovoy wrote: > Hello, Hackers! > > TODO list has an entry "Move NOT NULL constraint information to > pg_constraint" with four links and without two with the newest > work[1][2]. > > I rebased the patch from [2] (in attachment). At least it applies >