Re: correct NUL vs. NULL usage

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: correct NUL vs. NULL usage
Date: 2003-09-28 09:41:33
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0309281139560.11938-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian writes:

> Tom, I understand your research on the historical usage of null, but in
> PostgreSQL we have not two but three possible uses for n-u-l-l:
>
> o null pointer
> o null byte
> o null SQL value
>
> With that list, anything that makes null clearer is great. I think we
> should just standardize on 'NUL' for a null byte, or 'nul'.

I don't think someone coming in from the street and seeing a message or
code is going to understand that. If you really want to be clear, call it
"zero byte".

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-28 15:04:40 Re: pgsql-server/src/backend catalog/index.c comma ...
Previous Message Nigel J. Andrews 2003-09-28 09:28:08 Re: tsearch2 memory alloc checks