Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: comparing rows

From: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: comparing rows
Date: 2000-08-03 14:37:17
Message-ID: 3.0.1.32.20000803073717.014d7100@mail.pacifier.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At 10:23 AM 8/3/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
>> 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?
>
>Thomas is not saying that the *operation* is illegal.  His point is
>purely a syntactic one: SQL92 allows the keyword "NULL" only in certain
>specified contexts, and out on its own as a component of an arithmetic
>expression ain't one of them. 

I misunderstood, didn't check for the use of the literal, just the
semantics of the operations.

>As far as I can see, allowing NULL as a general-purpose literal is a
>perfectly reasonable spec extension that *everybody* does, including us.
>Thomas may be the only person anywhere who is bothered by it ;-)

Thomas, do you have a reference into the standard?



- 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

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-03 14:40:24
Subject: Re: comparing rows
Previous:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-08-03 14:35:13
Subject: Re: comparing rows

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group