On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:16:25 -0400
Stephen Chrzanowski pontia...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 PM, James K. Lowden
jklow...@schemamania.org wrote:
The problem I see with your suggestion is that I can't think of
another situation, with or without NULL, with or without
I wouldn't call it 'magical' if the definition is right on the field
declaration, and depending on the 'worth' of that particular bit of data
(Booleans in this case, and I've got absolutely zero concern to the actual
state of said boolean, but taking into consideration the typeless nature of
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Simon Slavin slav...@bigfraud.org wrote:
You could probably use a TRIGGER that detects the type of row you don't
want and replaces it with your preferred form. This doesn't do exactly
what you want, but it is something like it.
That'd work, but extra effort
On 8 Oct 2014, at 1:22pm, Stephen Chrzanowski pontia...@gmail.com wrote:
Can one not also put a constraint up on the field to say that the field can
only be of a certain value, kind of to emulate ENUM?
Sure you can. You can do anything expressible in SQL which turns into a
BOOLEAN value.
Hi,
It can even compare two fields in the same row and test one against the other
so you can, for example, make sure you don't have any people who are both
male and pregnant.
Actually, this restriction could be problematic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_pregnancy
Best regards
On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Stephen Chrzanowski pontia...@gmail.com wrote:
When adding a NULL value to a table that has the NOT NULL flag set on that
field, instead of raising an exception, if the field definition were to
have the word USE between ON CONFLICT and DEFAULT in its declaration,
If the field def'n were to be changed to [ col2 NUMBER DEFAULT ON NULL 0 ]
and then when I insert/update something that becomes NULL and the result
becomes 0 for that field, then yeah, bingo.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Petite Abeille petite.abei...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:14
On Oct 8, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Stephen Chrzanowski pontia...@gmail.com wrote:
If the field def'n were to be changed to [ col2 NUMBER DEFAULT ON NULL 0 ]
and then when I insert/update something that becomes NULL and the result
becomes 0 for that field, then yeah, bingo.
Yep, that’s exactly what
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 00:14:51 -0400
Stephen Chrzanowski pontia...@gmail.com wrote:
When adding a NULL value to a table that has the NOT NULL flag set on
that field, instead of raising an exception, if the field definition
were to have the word USE between ON CONFLICT and DEFAULT in
its
I'm making up a small database (for yet another tool I never plan on
releasing) and during the table creation, I had a thought about the Not
Null and On Conflict resolution mechanism.
When adding a NULL value to a table that has the NOT NULL flag set on that
field, instead of raising an
On 8 Oct 2014, at 5:14am, Stephen Chrzanowski pontia...@gmail.com wrote:
The one downside I just realized is that ON CONFLICT can be used outside of
the table declarations as well, so perhaps a different word or signal might
be needed for it to make linguistic sense, or, this version of ON
11 matches
Mail list logo
