2009/8/31 Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 02:06:02PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> 3) If we decide the sql standard is correct, so that (null, null) is
>> null == true, then we should observe rule 1 and make things work in
>> consistent way. This means, for example, that null::foo and (null,
>> null)::foo should not be distinct.
> The more awkward case (to me anyway) is that the standard says (1,NULL)
> IS NULL should evaluate to TRUE.
only (NULL, NULL) IS NULL is true
p.s. what isn't consistent (maybe - there are more possible interpretations) is
(NULL, NULL) IS DISTINCT FROM NULL is true
> I'd never noticed the ROW / RECORD dichotomy before; could one of these
> be made SQL compatible and the other use more sane semantics?
> Sam http://samason.me.uk/
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Jaime Casanova||Date: 2009-08-31 22:02:27|
|Subject: lost statistics; analyze needs to execute twice|
|Previous:||From: Sam Mason||Date: 2009-08-31 17:21:41|
|Subject: Re: inconsistent composite type null handling in plpgsql out variable|