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

Re: feature request ?

From: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, sad <sad(at)bankir(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: feature request ?
Date: 2004-06-24 17:32:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-sql
Hi all,
Tri-valued boolean?? that's not against boolean concept?? i'm not saying that SQL is wrong nor Postgresql has to go beyond standard, i'm just trying to understand this stuff.
Why not disallow the ability of boolean fields to be null?
thanx in advance,
Jaime Casanova

Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> wrote:
On Jun 24, 2004, at 6:39 PM, sad wrote:

> it's all clear
> but what about unequality of BOOL type possible value set and IF 
> alternatives
> set

In my opinion the short answer is NULL is here because of the SQL 
standard. The SQL standard does not specify any kind of "IF 
alternative" for 3-valued logic afaik. Why should PostgreSQL go beyond 
what the standard specifies in this hairy area? Three-valued logic is 
something I strive to stay away from to the best of my ability, as it 
is far too complicated for my feeble mind.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Do You Yahoo!?
Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo.
Visíta Yahoo! Noticias.

In response to


pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Bruno Wolff IIIDate: 2004-06-24 17:43:05
Subject: Re: feature request ?
Previous:From: Michael GlaesemannDate: 2004-06-24 15:51:58
Subject: Re: feature request ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group