| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | darcy(at)druid(dot)net (D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain) | 
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types | 
| Date: | 1998-11-02 18:35:43 | 
| Message-ID: | 199811021835.NAA17944@candle.pha.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
> Thus spake Tom Lane
> > My guess is that maybe this should not be fixed in the individual
> > datatypes at all; instead the generic function and operator code should
> > be modified so that if any input value is NULL, then NULL is returned as
> > the result without ever calling the datatype-specific code.
> 
> Could it be tied to the return type?  IOW, functions or operators
> that return bool return FALSE, text return "", etc.
> 
> > There might be specific operators for which this is not the right
> > behavior (although none spring to mind immediately).  In that case,
> > I think the best bet would be to have a per-operator flag, defaulting
> > to OFF, which could be turned on for those specific operators that are
> > prepared to cope with null inputs.
> 
> Obviously that will have to wait for 6.5 since it requires an initdb
> to add the field.  Do we want to wait that long?
The only thing I can add here is to look at the other functions, and do
what they do.
-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Constantin Teodorescu | 1998-11-02 18:45:15 | Small bugs in PostgreSQL 6.4 beta5 | 
| Previous Message | Taral | 1998-11-02 18:31:23 | RE: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types |