Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because of Access's brokenness, the parser or some other layer of the
> code "fixes" explicit = NULL (ie, in the actually query string) into
> IS NULL which is the correct way to check for nulls.
> Because your original query was = $1, it doesn't do the mangling of the
> SQL to change into IS NULL when $1 is NULL. The fact that we do that
> conversion at all actually breaks spec a little bit but we have little
> choice with broken clients.
It seems to me that we heard awhile ago that Access no longer generates
these non-spec-compliant queries --- ie, it does say IS NULL now rather
than the other thing. If so, it seems to me that we ought to remove the
parser's = NULL hack, so that we have spec-compliant NULL behavior.
Anyone recall anything about that? A quick search of my archives didn't
turn up the discussion that I thought I remembered.
regards, tom lane
