| From: | "Joe Conway" <joseph(dot)conway(at)home(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Michael Meskes" <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Does PostgreSQL support EXISTS? |
| Date: | 2001-06-14 01:28:27 |
| Message-ID: | 008001c0f471$50584da0$d7d310ac@jecw2k1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Got it. How does an IN subquery returning NULL behave differently from
> > one returning FALSE? I can't think of a test that would be affected.
>
> After we fix IS TRUE and friends to respond to nulls correctly (Conway's
> promised to do that, IIRC) it'll be possible to write
>
> (foo IN (SELECT ...)) IS NOT FALSE
>
> and get the "intuitive" behavior. But right now that doesn't work.
>
I'm still committed to it -- just want to finish up has_table_privilege
first -- shouldn't be too long now.
-- Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | George Herson | 2001-06-14 02:00:13 | Re: incomplete transaction keeps table locked? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-14 01:17:11 | Re: Vacuum analyze in 7.1.1 |