Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types

From: darcy(at)druid(dot)net (D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain)
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types
Date: 1998-11-02 18:06:38
Message-ID: m0zaONC-0000eRC@druid.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thus spake Tom Lane
> My guess is that maybe this should not be fixed in the individual
> datatypes at all; instead the generic function and operator code should
> be modified so that if any input value is NULL, then NULL is returned as
> the result without ever calling the datatype-specific code.

Could it be tied to the return type? IOW, functions or operators
that return bool return FALSE, text return "", etc.

> There might be specific operators for which this is not the right
> behavior (although none spring to mind immediately). In that case,
> I think the best bet would be to have a per-operator flag, defaulting
> to OFF, which could be turned on for those specific operators that are
> prepared to cope with null inputs.

Obviously that will have to wait for 6.5 since it requires an initdb
to add the field. Do we want to wait that long?

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Taral 1998-11-02 18:31:23 RE: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types
Previous Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1998-11-02 16:46:21 Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types