Sam Mason wrote:
> > You're intentionally assuming that row(null) IS NULL evaluating to true
> > implies that row(null) can be replaced by NULL. As discussed upthread, this
> > is not the case.
>
> But you've still not said how is this useful!
To me, IS NULL applied to rows, as a test of combined-nullnesss of the
columns inside the row, doesn't indeed look like something I'd use on a
regular basis, if at all. But I'll use IS DISTINCT FROM NULL on records. I
sympathize with the opinion that the standard "hijacks" the IS NULL operator
for rows in a way that is problematic (though not unworkable). But who cares
if it's not useful to some, or even to the majority? The standard opted for
that definition years ago, and also PG opted to implement it. It's too late.
Best regards,
--
Daniel
PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org