From: | darcy(at)druid(dot)net (D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain) |
---|---|
To: | taral(at)mail(dot)utexas(dot)edu (Taral) |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane), pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types |
Date: | 1998-11-02 19:41:46 |
Message-ID: | m0zaPrG-0000eRC@druid.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thus spake Taral
> > 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.
>
> AFAICT, the function code returns blank when the input is NULL, regardless
> of the function definition... this came up before when someone tried to
> extend the functions and found that func(NULL) called func, but disregarded
> the return value...
Well that sure fits with my observations. Sure seems wrong though. We
should either use the return value or don't call the function in the
first place. I vote for the latter even though I have spent the time
fixing inet. It seems like the proper method.
--
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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-11-02 19:48:29 | Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types |
Previous Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 1998-11-02 19:36:04 | Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types |