>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> But that still leaves us with ten years of history in which we
Tom> *were* conforming to the spec, modulo the very narrow corner case
Tom> mentioned in this thread.
Yeah, but the main visible effect of that has been a stream of "you have
to use NOT (x IS NULL) rather than (x IS NOT NULL)" responses to people
having trouble with this.
Is there a single reported case where anyone has actually needed the
spec's version of (x IS NOT NULL) for a composite type?
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)