From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: NULL = col |
Date: | 1999-05-11 03:23:34 |
Message-ID: | 3737A2B6.A3F149C2@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes, that is true. There are several cases where we check just for =
> NULL and not NULL = in the internals, not the grammar.
That part is probably OK, since both statements are internalized to be
the same.
> > There is currently a single shift/reduce conflict in gram.y, and I'm
> > suprised to find that it is *not* due to the "NULL_P '=' a_expr" line.
> Yep. I got that working with precidence for NULL, I think.
Hmm.
> Any chance of making your signature Thomas, to not confuse it with Tom
> Lane?
I'm trying to, but it's *so* many letters to type...
- Tom^H^H^Hhomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-05-11 03:25:34 | Re: [HACKERS] NULL = col |
Previous Message | Don Baccus | 1999-05-11 03:22:06 |