From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Weird NULL behavior |
Date: | 2002-11-07 19:35:56 |
Message-ID: | 20021107113216.S99207-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Ludwig Lim wrote:
> >> SELECT CAST ( (NULL*NULL) AS NUMERIC(2,0));
> >> Cannot cast type '"char"' to '"numeric"'
>
> > It seems to me that it's trying to decide on a type
> > for the expression NULL * NULL. It's a NULL, but a
> > NULL of what type?
>
> Yeah, and it's picking "char" (the single-byte datatype), because
> (a) the NULLs are initially regarded as type UNKNOWN, and (b) if we
> don't have any other way to make a decision we try assuming that
> UNKNOWNs are of string category, and (c) the only datatype in string
> category that has a "*" operator is "char".
>
> I am kind of inclined to remove the arithmetic operators on "char"
> (+,-,*,/) in 7.4 --- they don't seem to have any real-world uses,
> and as this example illustrates, they are perfectly positioned to
> capture cases that probably ought to be errors.
That seems to make sense. I assume that they were there so that someone
could treat it as a 1 byte integer?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-07 20:00:51 | Re: Weird NULL behavior |
Previous Message | Joost Witteveen | 2002-11-07 19:20:52 | pg_dump, no inserts but \copy? |