| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mark Stosberg <mark(at)summersault(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Standards |
| Date: | 2001-06-07 02:19:42 |
| Message-ID: | 6689.991880382@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, column = NULL should *never* return true according to the spec (it
> should always return NULL in fact as stated). The reason for breaking
> with the spec is AFAIK to work with broken microsoft clients that seem to
> think that =NULL is a meaningful test and generate queries using that.
Microsoft Access is the guilty party, IIRC. I recently tried to stir up
some interest in changing this behavior back to the standard, but
apparently there are still too many people using broken versions of
Access.
A compromise answer might be to offer a SET variable that selects the
Microsoft-compatible misimplementation. Would that fly?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2001-06-07 02:37:57 | Re: ORDER BY Problem... |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2001-06-07 02:14:13 | RE: place for newbie postgresql hackers to work |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Tomblin | 2001-06-07 02:26:01 | Help me speed things up... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-07 02:13:11 | Re: maximum number of rows in table - what about oid limits? |