On Sunday 31 May 2009 18:41:55 Tom Lane wrote: > AFAICS, the SQL standard demands that precision and scale fields be > non-null all the time for those data types where they make sense > (this is encoded in the CHECK CONSTRAINTs that are declared for the > various information-schema tables, see particularly 21.15 > DATA_TYPE_DESCRIPTOR base table in SQL99). DATE is clearly wrong > per spec, but it's not the only problem.
The DATE change is the only thing I'd be prepared to make right now. > Our interpretation has been to set these values to null if the typmod > is defaulted, which is reasonable in the abstract but it's still a > violation of spec. I wonder whether we should be inserting some large > limit value instead. That is something to think about, but it needs more time. We also have some inconsistency there; for example we produce a large limit value for octet length. Needs more thought. And if we go down that route, it should also require less hardcoding of numbers into information_schema.sql. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
