At 01:44 PM 8/3/00 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>> Not compatible with the current release of MS SQL/MSDE :-) At least not
>> fully.
>
>The original issue was that "foo = NULL" is *not* a legal SQL92
>statement. 

Ummm...I think this is wrong, and I have Date on my side (I just
checked).  foo = NULL is NULL, just like foo + NULL is NULL.

If foo = NULL is illegal, doesn't this make it rather difficult to
say things like table1.i = table2.i for tables that contain NULLs
in column i?

Oracle allows it, and returns NULL.  Oracle's fairly trustworthy
on low-level standards compliance over things like NULL (not
entirely, though - it treats '' as NULL in the VALUES list of
an INSERT, though not elsewhere, for instance).

NULL = NULL is also perfectly legal, returning NULL.  Before one
gets too excited, NULL <> NULL and NULL < NULL etc all return
NULL, too, along with NULL = <anything> so it's not terribly
useful, which is why IS NULL exists.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
  Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
  http://donb.photo.net.

In response to

• Re: comparing rows at 2000-08-03 13:44:22 from Thomas Lockhart

Responses

• Re: comparing rows at 2000-08-03 14:22:37 from Bruce Momjian
• Re: comparing rows at 2000-08-03 14:23:15 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2000-08-03 13:55:35
	Subject: Re: comparing rows
Previous:	From: Thomas Lockhart	Date: 2000-08-03 13:44:22
	Subject: Re: comparing rows