| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: correct NUL vs. NULL usage |
| Date: | 2003-09-28 09:41:33 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0309281139560.11938-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom, I understand your research on the historical usage of null, but in
> PostgreSQL we have not two but three possible uses for n-u-l-l:
>
> o null pointer
> o null byte
> o null SQL value
>
> With that list, anything that makes null clearer is great. I think we
> should just standardize on 'NUL' for a null byte, or 'nul'.
I don't think someone coming in from the street and seeing a message or
code is going to understand that. If you really want to be clear, call it
"zero byte".
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-28 15:04:40 | Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ... |
| Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2003-09-28 09:28:08 | Re: tsearch2 memory alloc checks |