Re: Different behaviour of concate() and concate operator ||

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: amul sul <sul_amul(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)in>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Different behaviour of concate() and concate operator ||
Date: 2014-04-28 17:25:56
Message-ID: 22619.1398705956@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> The missing bit of context is that concat() is there because early on
> in Postgres's life there was an effort to have a full suite of Oracle
> compatibility functions. If someone suggested it now they would be
> pushed towards making it an extension or pointed at EDB. But things
> like concat are the remnants of that.

Well, that's historical revisionism, because concat() was added in 9.1.
But if it was defined this way for Oracle compatibility, that makes
sense, because Oracle doesn't distinguish NULL from empty strings.
So they pretty much would have to make concat() treat NULL as empty.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2014-04-28 17:48:13 Re: allowing VACUUM to be cancelled for conflicting locks
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-04-28 17:20:47 Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained