Re: NVL vs COALESCE

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>
To: Marcus Engene <mengpg(at)engene(dot)se>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: NVL vs COALESCE
Date: 2005-11-24 12:38:25
Message-ID: 7DF53811-C757-4F1C-9FFE-44D227AF3CD2@myrealbox.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Nov 24, 2005, at 21:21 , Marcus Engene wrote:

> When we're having an alias discussion, I'd really like to see NVL
> in postgres. Not because of porting from oracle as much as just
> spelling that without the reference manual is completely impossible.

NVL: what a very unfortunate spelling. (NULL VaLue? NULL Valued
Logic? Named Very Loosely? Someone help me here :) ) AFAICT, COALESCE
is SQL standard, while NVL isn't. I think an index entry might be a
good idea.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2005-11-24 12:43:57 Re: NVL vs COALESCE
Previous Message Marcus Engene 2005-11-24 12:21:21 NVL vs COALESCE