FreeTDS Development Group

["Reid, Roger L." <roger.reid AT dpw.com>]

"Supposed to" is arguable - I hear you but let's do the other side of
it/

I understand that if you are using the current MS SS 2005 and their
dialect and defaults etc etc this is the default behaviour - and being
in the midst of porting 20 years of Sybase to SQL Server in 10 different
languages I appreciate "rewrite it" isn't always helpful.

BUT

if you care if the field can or cannot contain NULLs, just specify it.
This is so changeable from platform to platform and configuration to
configuration that I'd never rely on a multi-database tool to get the
default-of-the-moment right, any better than I can remember which is the
default.

Leaving aside all the good theoretical reasons to avoid them, I'm
convinced the sheer lack of standardization is plenty of reason to avoid
them. 

Can you simply specify what you want in the statement, and if nothing
else make life slightly easier for the next fella?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eloy Lafuente [mailto:stronk7 AT moodle.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:00 PM
> I'm not specifying the null clause (because it's supposed 
> that, if you don't specify it, the field is NULLable). If 
> NULL is specified (like in your example, everything seems to 
> work fine).