| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>,"Jim Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: revision of todo: NULL for ROW variables |
| Date: | 2010-11-01 18:29:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4CCEC0CD0200002500037078@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> Seriously though, I think that we should stick as closely to the
> letter of the standard as possible here (or, if there is
> ambiguity, pick one reasonable interpretation). NULL semantics are
> confusing enough without everyone making their own subtle tweaks.
+1
If the standard behavior doesn't support all the functionality we
need, we should be looking at PostgreSQL extensions which do not
conflict with standard syntax. Supporting standard syntax with
different semantics is evil.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-11-01 19:36:39 | Re: Range Types, discrete and/or continuous |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-11-01 18:19:14 | Re: revision of todo: NULL for ROW variables |