From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "surabhi(dot)ahuja" <surabhi(dot)ahuja(at)iiitb(dot)ac(dot)in> |
Cc: | "A(dot) Kretschmer" <andreas(dot)kretschmer(at)schollglas(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: IN clause |
Date: | 2006-11-24 12:20:10 |
Message-ID: | 20061124122010.GA11655@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 05:31:07PM +0530, surabhi.ahuja wrote:
> That is fine
> but what I was actually expecting is this
> if
> select * from table where col_name in (null, 'a', 'b');
>
> to return those rows where col_name is null or if it = a or if it is = b
>
> But i think in does not not support null queries , am i right?
You'll need to check the standard, but IN() treats NULL specially, I
think it returns NULL if any of the elements is null, or something like
that. It certainly doesn't work the way you think it does.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Harris | 2006-11-24 12:20:52 | Re: Shutting down a warm standby database in 8.2beta3 |
Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2006-11-24 12:18:47 | Re: IN clause |