"func(?)" will be rejected by the server at runtime if there is ambiguity,
but it could be coded as "func(cast(?) as sometype)" if ? can be null.
In the case of "? IS NULL", I don't understand how the type of the null
would
affect the evaluation of this boolean expression.
Jean-Pierre Pelletier
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kris Jurka" <books@ejurka.com>
To: "Oliver Jowett" <oliver@opencloud.com>
Cc: "Jean-Pierre Pelletier" <pelletier_32@sympatico.ca>;
<pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [JDBC] setObject on PGInterval throws "Unknown Type null"
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Oliver Jowett wrote:
>
>> [ways to set null values for non-standard types]
>
> I'm kind of leaning to removing the restriction that nulls must be
> strongly typed. Compared to the current workarounds the idea that a
> (very) few cases won't work isn't that bad. What I recall "? IS NULL"
> won't work and "func(?)" could be ambiguous, but that doesn't stop you
> from specifying a type for these cases. For non-null values we need the
> strong typing to ensure that we don't send data in a different format than
> the server expects, but this is not an issue with nulls.
>
> Kris Jurka
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly