Re: comparing NEW and OLD (any good this way?)

Sam Mason wrote:

> But it seems to be a somewhat arbitrary choice to handle
> IS NULL for rows differently from everything else.

For scalar or array types, "is null" means that the value happens to be that
special value that we call null. No conceptual problem here.
But for rows, there is no such thing. You can't assign null to a row, it
makes no sense and actually causes an error.
Starting from that point, what consistency can we expect for the "is null"
operator across row types and other types?

> Yes, I understand what it's specified to do and that it's consistent
> with SQL spec. I just think (and Merlin seems to agree) that the spec
> has specified the "wrong" behavior.

So for you guys, what would be the "right" behavior?

Best regards,
--
Daniel
PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org