From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg ANY/SOME ambiguity wrt sql standard? |
Date: | 2004-05-02 09:12:44 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.58.0405021101210.27282@chailly99 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Tom,
> > The standard "EVERY" is fine for postgres, the issue is only with
> > ANY/SOME. Do you think that bool_and should be proposed anyway for
> > homogeneity with bool_or?
>
> I think EVERY is actively misleading, because it does *not* imply that
> every input is TRUE. The spec says these aggregates should ignore
> nulls, and so a true result only implies that there were no FALSE
> inputs.
>
> OTOH one could argue that the ignore-nulls behavior makes this not a
> true analog of AND, either ...
Argh, how stupid I am, I missread the specification! Then the patch I sent
yesterday is wrong if NULL values are encountered:-( I should learn how to
read sometimes...
However, I did not name the boolean and aggregate EVERY, it is BOOL_AND
(in the patch), because I tend to prefer homogeneity.
I'll resubmit a patch later.
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-05-02 11:11:49 | Timezone database questions |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-05-02 07:44:25 | Re: mingw configure failure workaround |