| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Joe Conway'" <joseph(dot)conway(at)home(dot)com>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. S tand ards |
| Date: | 2001-06-19 07:21:07 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368334@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > -- If I have interpreted SQL92 correctly UNKNOWN IS TRUE should return
> > FALSE, and UNKNOWN IS NOT TRUE is equivalent to NOT (UNKNOWN IS TRUE) ==>
> > TRUE. Is this correct?
>
> No, I do not think it is valid to say "should return true|false"
> I think they should return UNKNOWN. Only when it comes to evaluating the
> "... WHERE UNKNOWN;" can you translate it to "... WHERE FALSE;", or in the
> output function.
Forget it, sorry. I am confusing the "IS" with "=" :-(
I am not used to the new SQL99 syntax yet.
I think your interpretation is correct.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-06-19 12:03:24 | Re: Re: temp-table-related failure in regression tests |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-06-19 07:10:25 | AW: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. S tand ards |