From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP json generation enhancements |
Date: | 2012-11-26 20:05:44 |
Message-ID: | 12024.1353960344@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> In some previous mail Tom Lane claimed that by SQL standard
> either an array of all NULLs or a record with all fields NULLs (I
> don't remember which) is also considered NULL. If this is true,
> then an empty array - which can be said to consist of nothing
> but NULLs - should itself be NULL.
What I think you're referring to is that the spec says that "foo IS
NULL" should return true if foo is a record containing only null fields.
That's a fairly narrow statement. It does NOT say that NULL and
(NULL,NULL,...) are indistinguishable for all purposes; only that
this particular test doesn't distinguish them. Also I don't think they
have the same statement for arrays.
The analogy to other aggregates is probably a better thing to argue
from. On the other hand, I don't know anyone outside the SQL standards
committee who thinks it's actually a good idea that SUM() across no rows
returns null rather than zero.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2012-11-26 20:09:17 | Re: WIP json generation enhancements: fk-tree-to-json() |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-11-26 19:54:19 | Re: WIP json generation enhancements |