Re: Proposal: revert behavior of IS NULL on row types

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: revert behavior of IS NULL on row types
Date: 2016-07-23 00:45:32
Message-ID: 87eg6lqjhn.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "David" == David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

>> Prohibiting IS NOT NULL is not on the cards; it's very widely used.

David> ​Yet changing how it behaves, invisibly, is?

Did you mean prohibiting it only for composite-type args? It's obviously
widely used for non-composite args.

I would expect that >95% of cases where someone has written (x IS NOT
NULL) for x being a composite type, it's actually a bug and that NOT (x
IS NULL) was intended.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2016-07-23 01:05:49 Re: Proposal: revert behavior of IS NULL on row types
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2016-07-23 00:25:10 Re: Proposal: revert behavior of IS NULL on row types