Re: BUG #14235: inconsistencies with IS NULL / IS NOT NULL

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 #14235: inconsistencies with IS NULL / IS NOT NULL
Date: 2016-07-23 00:22:28
Message-ID: 19193.1469233348@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:
> Yeah, but the main visible effect of that has been a stream of "you have
> to use NOT (x IS NULL) rather than (x IS NOT NULL)" responses to people
> having trouble with this.

I don't offhand recall any such complaints on pgsql-bugs. Maybe there
have been some on IRC.

> Is there a single reported case where anyone has actually needed the
> spec's version of (x IS NOT NULL) for a composite type?

By definition, we get no "reports" for a case where something works
as someone expects. So you're demanding proof that cannot exist.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2016-07-23 00:34:15 Re: BUG #14235: inconsistencies with IS NULL / IS NOT NULL
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2016-07-23 00:12:19 Re: BUG #14235: inconsistencies with IS NULL / IS NOT NULL