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

Re: comparing rows

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: comparing rows
Date: 2000-08-03 16:23:47
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0008031321070.497-100000@thelab.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I thought our only kludge was allowing = NULL because we got tons of MS
> > folks complaining in the past before we did this.  Are you thinking that
> > the newer MS versions will not give us a problem.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure.  Magnus is saying that the newer MS servers default
> to spec-compliant semantics --- ie, foo = NULL will yield NULL.  But
> IIRC the original complaints were because MS tools like Access would
> *generate* this expression and expect it to behave like foo IS NULL.
> 
> Can MS have fixed all their apps already?  Seems unlikely.  Maybe we
> have to leave the kluge in there awhile longer.

I kind of agree with your original comment about removing the kludge,
since the kludge does go against the spec ...

... a couple of thoughts to that effect:

1. this won't be 'in effect' until v7.1 comes out anyway
2. v7.0.2 will still have the kludge and will be available if ppl *really*
   need it, no?

My vote is to go with Tom on this and remove the kludge ...



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Roland RobertsDate: 2000-08-03 17:36:01
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] random() function produces wrong range
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-03 16:20:50
Subject: bit/varbit stuff

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