| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Chris Travers" <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: why the need for is null? |
| Date: | 2004-01-05 05:55:18 |
| Message-ID: | 22175.1073282118@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Chris Travers" <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> writes:
> Minor correction to Christopher Browne's post:
> It is currently possible to set PostgreSQL to evaluate x = NULL as x IS
> NULL.
Also, while I'm not totally sure about the behavior of SQL Server,
we have been told that its recent releases are spec-compliant on NULL
handling. The fact that 'transform_null_equals' exists (and was even
the default PG behavior for awhile) arises from the fact that some older
versions of MS Access expect this behavior. Presumably that means that
MS has at some point shipped a database that behaves that way ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-05 06:08:11 | Re: PostgreSQL 7.4.1 incredibly slow :-( |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-05 05:50:38 | Re: Cursor Not Found |