From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #7808: unnest doesn't handle nulls in array of composite typescorrectly |
Date: | 2016-07-23 14:49:18 |
Message-ID: | 18501.1469285358@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> This bug was reported three and a half years ago and apparently
> ignored... but it came to my attention in the IS NULL discussion.
> This patch doesn't address unnest() explicitly, rather it modifies
> ExecMakeTableFunctionResult to treat an isnull return equivalently to an
> all-nulls tuple.
I do not see how you can propose this, which creates an explicit
equivalence between a plain null and an all-nulls row, and simultaneously
advocate that we change IS NULL to remove its treatment of those things
as equivalent.
I think the theory behind the existing code here is that if the SRF wants
its output to be interpreted as an all-nulls row, it can perfectly well
return an all-nulls row. I wonder whether we should address this by
adjusting unnest's behavior instead.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2016-07-23 23:47:51 | Re: BUG #7808: unnest doesn't handle nulls in array of composite typescorrectly |
Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2016-07-23 08:25:03 | Re: BUG #7808: unnest doesn't handle nulls in array of composite typescorrectly |