Re: [HACKERS] Re: AWL: Re: tm1

> > People may have problems with the NULL statements with some versions
> > of PostgreSQL.  I have information about editing the applix macro
> > on that creates the tables my web site:
> >         http://www.radix.net/~cobrien/applix/applix.txt
> 
> Just in case someone cares ;)
> 
> The "NULL" constraint for a column definition is not defined in SQL92,
> and is not necessary and could be dropped from Applix's definition of
> the table. The default behavior of any column defined in SQL is to
> allow NULL values. 
> 
> Postgres does not implement this redundant syntax extension because
> yacc-style parsers such as the one used in Postgres find the use of
> the bare NULL an ambiguous context. Presumably that is why SQL92 does
> not define it.
> 
> However, I see that in a limited context, such as a bare NULL with no
> other qualifiers, yacc can handle its use. I'll add it to Postgres'
> next release...

Yes, we are hearing people use it.  Seems like we could just ignore the
NULL if possible.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026