On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-03-05 23:27 GMT+09:00 Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>: >> >> On 03/05/2014 09:11 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> >>> After testing this feature, I noticed that FORCE_NULL and >>> FORCE_NOT_NULL can both be specified with COPY on the same column. >>> This does not seem correct. The attached patch adds some more error >>> handling, and a regression test case for that. >>> >> >> >> Strictly they are not actually contradictory, since FORCE NULL relates to >> quoted null strings and FORCE NOT NULL relates to unquoted null strings. >> Arguably the docs are slightly loose on this point. Still, applying both >> FORCE NULL and FORCE NOT NULL to the same column would be rather perverse, >> since it would result in a quoted null string becoming null and an unquoted >> null string becoming not null. > > Too frazzled to recall clearly right now, but I think that was the somewhat > counterintuitive conclusion I originally came to. In this case I may be an intuitive guy :), but OK I see your point. So if we specify both this produces the exact opposite as the default, default being an empty string inserted for a quoted empty string and NULL inserted for a non-quoted empty string. So yes I'm fine with a note on the docs about that, and some more regression tests.
Btw, if we allow this behavior in COPY, why doesn't file_fdw allow both options to be allowed on the same column for a foreign table? Current behavior of file_fdw seems rather inconsistent with COPY as it stands now. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
