Sam Mason <s...@samason.me.uk> wrote: > If we did follow Kevin's request directly, should we also be > specifying the type of NULL? I don't *think* the SQL standard requires that, and barring that I don't see any compelling reason to type NULL. One problem I do see with the current scheme, however, is that NULL *does* get typed to text when it makes no sense. In my view, a CASE expression which has only NULL for its return values, or an abbreviated form of CASE, such as COALESCE or NULLIF, should be evaluated exactly the same as if they were replaced by NULL itself. For example, COALESCE(NULL, NULL) currently yields NULL::text. In my view that's wrong. I view it as a bug, but that seems to be a hard sell here. Likewise, I think that in the query which started this thread, the cast to "char" is not sensible. I'm not sure how that could be resolved, but it doesn't seem correct to me. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
