| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Postgres Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Handling NULL records in plpgsql |
| Date: | 2008-10-25 18:59:07 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070810251159s2948f337g380e5c9e2b73352c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I really think we should have a way of telling if a array/row/record
> variable is actually set to something, and I'm pretty sure that should be
> unrelated to whether all the elements in it happen to be null.
+1. Also, can whatever syntax we introduce by something relatively
concise? Code that looks nice when you write "=" does not look as
nice when you write "IS NOT DISTINCT FROM". I'm almost inclined to
suggest using functional notation rather than dreaming up a new "IS
WHATEVER" syntax.
> And the IS
> NOT NULL case seems exceptionally broken. I think it's extremely confusing
> to have it behave differently than NOT blah IS NULL.
-1. This is obviously a trap for the unwary but I think we're stuck with it.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Gudeman | 2008-10-25 20:35:35 | Re: Handling NULL records in plpgsql |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-10-25 18:31:06 | Re: Regression in IN( field, field, field ) performance |