On 2022-06-16 23:58:23 -0700, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> b...@yugabyte.com wrote:
>
> Can anybody show me an implementation of a realistic use case that
> follows proper practice — like "every table must a primary key", "a
> f
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> b...@yugabyte.com wrote:
>>
>> Can anybody show me an implementation of a realistic use case that follows
>> proper practice — like "every table must a primary key", "a foreign key must
>> refer to a primary key", and "joins may be made only "on" columns
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 8:28 PM Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
>
> *Back to NULLs...*
>
> Your code examples ran without error and produced the results that you
> described. I do understand the fact that, on its face, the NULLs in the
> two cases arise for different reasons. But this (still) seems to me
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> b...@yugabyte.com wrote:
>>
>> This is what the doc promises. But how can you see it as anything but a bug?
>> The subquery evaluates to "null", and only then is the attempt made to
>> create a new row which self-evidently violates the domain's constrain
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> The fact that a domain over an array isn’t being seen as an array here
> seems like a bug.
Hmm. The attached quick-hack patch seems to make this better, but
I'm not sure whether there are any cases it makes worse.
regards, tom lane
diff --g
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 11:07 PM Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> This is what the doc promises. But how can you see it as anything but a
> bug? The subquery evaluates to "null", and only then is the attempt made to
> create a new row which self-evidently violates the domain's constraint. How
> is it any
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> b...@yugabyte.com wrote:
>>
>> I’ve copied a self-contained testcase below. Is the error that the "as
>> intended" test causes due to a known limitation—or even a semantic dilemma
>> that I'm failing to spot? Or might it be due to a bug?
>
> I read the
On Wednesday, June 15, 2022, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> I’ve copied a self-contained testcase below. Is the error that the "as
> intended" test causes due to a known limitation—or even a semantic dilemma
> that I'm failing to spot? Or might it be due to a bug?
>
I read the note in create domain as
