From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, CSN <cool_screen_name90001(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: NULL != text ? |
Date: | 2005-10-21 02:32:50 |
Message-ID: | 43585352.8000805@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/20/2005 6:10 AM, Alban Hertroys wrote:
> Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>> if (OLD.value IS NOT NULL and NEW.value IS NOT NULL and OLD.value <>
>> NEW.value) or OLD.value IS NULL or NEW.value IS NULL
>>
>> But that's untested and I have a hard time thinking in three-value logic.
>
> For completeness sake; Because of lazy evaluation, that boils down to:
>
> if (OLD.value IS NULL OR NEW.value IS NULL OR OLD.value <> NEW.value)
That would result in TRUE if both, OLD and NEW are NULL. Is that what
you intended?
Jan
>
> The last part of the expression is only evaluated if both OLD.value and
> NEW.value aren't NULL.
>
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrick TJ McPhee | 2005-10-21 03:51:14 | Re: PSQL suggested enhancement |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-10-21 00:45:29 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Oracle buys Innobase |