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


From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>,"Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] IS OF
Date: 2003-08-08 22:45:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> In fact you could argue that our current behavior is *more* useful than
> what the spec says for polymorphics.  You would not want the special
> case for NULLs, in most cases, I'd think.  NULLs have perfectly well
> defined datatype.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking.

> However, it troubles me to be using a spec-defined syntax for a behavior
> that is not standard.  I'd prefer to change the syntax if we are going
> to keep the behavior.  That probably puts it in the "too late for 7.4"
> category.  So I'm inclined to follow the path of leaving it undocumented
> for now, implementing a new syntax in 7.5, and documenting it under that
> syntax then.

Sounds good to me.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Manfred KoizarDate: 2003-08-08 23:18:55
Subject: Re: Correlation in cost_index()
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-08-08 22:38:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] IS OF

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2003-08-08 23:56:45
Subject: UPDATED UnixWare Threads Patch.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-08-08 22:38:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] IS OF

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group