Re: strange IS NULL behaviour

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 07:42:55AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-06 23:07:04 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:00:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 05:06:41PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >> Another possible fix would be to avoid the IS NULL value optimizer
> > > >> expansion if a ROW construct is inside a ROW(). I have attached a patch
> > > >> that does this for review.
> > >
> > > > Having received no replies, do people perfer this version of the patch
> > > > that just punts nested ROW IS NULL testing to execQual.c?
> > >
> > > For some reason I read your previous message as saying you were willing to
> > > wait for considered reviews this time. If not, I'll just write a blanket
> > > -1 for any version of this patch.
> >
> > Are you saying people will comment later? I wasn't clear that was the
> > plan. I can certainly wait.
>
> You do realize mere mortals in the project frequently have to wait
> *months* to get comments on their patches? Not getting any for less than
> 48h doesn't seem to be saying much.

My original problem report was November, 2012:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50B3D11F.20408@2ndQuadrant.com

and my patch to fix this was July 4. Tom gave me a code snipped to test
PL/pgSQL's handling of record types. I tested that and it looked ok,
but there are other place to test that I don't know about.

> Why don't you add the proposal to the commitfest?

This issue is so much larger than the patch's validity that I don't see
how that would work.

I obviously can't complete this, so I am adding a TODO item:

IS NULL testing of nested ROW() values is inconsistent

All my patches are in that thread in case someone who can complete this
item wants to take it over.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +