NULLs ;-)

> (Can we talk about NULL next? :P)

Seriously though, there is one thing I've been meaning to bring up. I
understand why NULLs compare the way they do in queries, and that's fine.
But there are times when I need to query what would be described in
relational terms as "not known to be equal", and

where a <> b or (a is null and b is not null) or (a is not null and b is
null)

is rather clumsy and verbose (though precise), especially when it needs to
be combined with other criteria.

So, first, have I missed some way to express that more easily in PG? And if
not, is there any reason not to request a new operator? (Perhaps "a nktbe
b"? The C guy in me prefers "a != b" but that would be *FAR* too prone to
confusion with <>.)

--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice