| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: COALESCE and NULLIF semantics |
| Date: | 2009-09-11 22:13:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1252707224.9975.118.camel@monkey-cat.sm.truviso.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 17:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Eh? It's a null value of a composite type. The above is a type
> violation.
The spec calls it "the null value" which is included in all domains
(Framework 4.4.2). However, in the same section, it mentions "the data
type of the null value", so apparently each null does have a specific
type.
It seems to me like the spec would have something to say about
ROW(NULL,NULL) versus NULL. Do other systems make a distinction?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-09-11 22:35:46 | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-09-11 22:13:17 | Re: COPY enhancements |