Re: BUG #14717: NULL=NULL is true for composite types

I'm really sorry, David. For some reason I overlooked that part. Thanks.

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​On Jun 26, 2017, at 4:49 PM, "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:29 AM, <paolo(dot)guagliardo(at)ed(dot)ac(dot)uk> wrote:

The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:      14717
Logged by:          Paolo Guagliardo
Email address:      paolo(dot)guagliardo(at)ed(dot)ac(dot)uk
PostgreSQL version: 9.6.3
Operating system:   Scientific Linux release 7.3 (Nitrogen)
Description:

​[...]​ 

SELECT (1,NULL)::pair = (1,NULL)::pair ;

 ?column?
----------
 t
(1 row)

while the answer should be NULL (unknown) as before.

Working as documented.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/functions-comparisons.html

See the last two sections for why (or at least how...) "anonymous row constructor" and "named record" are treated differently.
David J.

On Jun 26, 2017, 4:49 PM, at 4:49 PM, "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:29 AM, <paolo(dot)guagliardo(at)ed(dot)ac(dot)uk> wrote:
>
>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Bug reference: 14717
>> Logged by: Paolo Guagliardo
>> Email address: paolo(dot)guagliardo(at)ed(dot)ac(dot)uk
>> PostgreSQL version: 9.6.3
>> Operating system: Scientific Linux release 7.3 (Nitrogen)
>> Description:
>>
>> ​[...]
>​
>
>
>> SELECT (1,NULL)::pair = (1,NULL)::pair ;
>>
>> ?column?
>> ----------
>> t
>> (1 row)
>>
>> while the answer should be NULL (unknown) as before.
>>
>
>Working as documented.
>
>https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/functions-comparisons.html
>
>See the last two sections for why (or at least how...) "anonymous row
>constructor" and "named record" are treated differently.
>
>David J.