On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Right at the moment, if we stick with the historical definition >>> of the function, *both* camps have to write out their choice of >>> the above. Seems like this is the worst of all possible worlds. >>> We should probably pick one or the other. > >> ISTM there are three camps. > > If there's a camp that actually *wants* a NULL result for this case, > I missed the reasoning. AFAICS we can either say that every application > is going to have to put in a CASE wrapper around this function, or say > that we'll make it do the right thing for some of them and the rest have > to put the same wrapper around it.
So that we don't break existing apps because of an issue that is trivial to work around. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
