| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'thomas(at)pgsql(dot)com'" <thomas(at)pgsql(dot)com> |
| Cc: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | AW: Re: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL v s. Stand ards |
| Date: | 2001-06-11 07:05:07 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368318@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> From Andreas' comments, it seems that for his application he would like
> a different behavior, but frankly I'm not certain why the current
> behavior would be detrimental in the use case he mentioned. If SQL92
> requires that any query with "= NULL" be rejected as illegal
You don't mean me, no ? My comment was intended to give an argument *for*
allowing "= NULL" to behave like "IS NULL", by saying that the "= NULL"
syntax is not defined directly (which Tom Ivar corrected), and would thus
only be an extension.
Tom Lane on the other hand said, that the standard only states NULL as a
constant for a comparison when properly cast to a datatype.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-06-11 07:35:14 | AW: Various silliness in heap_getnext and related routi nes |
| Previous Message | Martín Marqués | 2001-06-11 05:25:59 | Re: something smells bad |