Re: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards
От | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Тема | Re: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 00e301c0f888$19839b70$0705a8c0@jecw2k1 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > I assume you are just looking for review at this point; I would not > > recommend applying to CVS until the BooleanTest part is done too. > > (Since parsetree changes affect stored rules, the change really should > > include a catversion.h increment, and thus it's best to bunch this sort > > of change together to avoid forcing extra initdbs on other hackers.) > > I'll look through the code later, but... > OK -- here's the full patch for review. It includes two new expression node types: NullTest and BooleanTest. I have a couple of questions/comments remaining WRT this: -- Should I increment catversion.h as part of the patch (I didn't in this patch), or is that usually centrally controlled by Bruce (or whomever commits the change)? -- IMHO, if we are going to keep the (a = null) to (a is null) conversion, then there should also be a similar conversion from (a != null) to (a is not null). Otherwise the two operations which may be expected to be complimentary (as evidenced by at least one recent post) are not. -- If I have interpreted SQL92 correctly UNKNOWN IS TRUE should return FALSE, and UNKNOWN IS NOT TRUE is equivalent to NOT (UNKNOWN IS TRUE) ==> TRUE. Is this correct? Thanks, -- Joe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: