Edmund Dengler wrote: > Is the rewrite only for the literal 'X = NULL' or will it do a test > against a value such as 'X = OLD.X' (and rewrite is OLD.X is NULL)?
It is a parse time transformation: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&th=26ef31219ae11442&seekm=3DF52206.5060507%40mascari.com#link6 > Is there any way to match NULLS to each other (as I am looking for a > literal row, not using NULL as the UNKNOWN). I suppose I could put in a > dummy value for the 'Not a valid value', but it seems to be quite awkward > when I really do want the NULL. Normalization would have you eliminate the NULL by having another relation whose candidate key is the same as your original table, but those records whose attribute is NULL would simply not be present in the child table. Another possible solution is to define your own type with an internal status for 'Not a valid value'... HTH, Mike Mascari [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
