From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | darcy(at)druid(dot)net (D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain) |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr typesg |
Date: | 1998-11-03 15:46:14 |
Message-ID: | 6914.910107974@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
darcy(at)druid(dot)net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
> you do realize that this wouldn't work anyway, right? The following
> is a parse error.
> SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE b = null;
> Mind you, I think that's a weakness but I don't know what the issues
> are with respect to the code or the standard.
I believe the accepted spelling of that query is
SELECT count(*) FROM t1 WHERE b IS NULL;
(or IS NOT NULL). I don't know either what the SQL standard has to say
about the issue --- does it expect "= NULL" to be a synonym for "IS NULL"?
The CREATE FUNCTION example does seem to illustrate that it'd be nice
if "=" and "!=" worked on NULL values. I'd still object to trying
to define an order that includes NULL, so "3 < NULL" should return NULL,
but I can see the reasonableness of defining "3 != NULL" as TRUE.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-11-03 16:38:03 | Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1998-11-03 15:35:22 | Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types |