Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> I have not heard any feedback on this patch, so I would like to apply it >> to give us a nested ROW/IS NULL API we can document. It would have to >> be marked in the release notes as a backward incompatibility.
> I don't have time to look at this in detail right now, but I think > that's considerably premature. I'm not convinced that we understand > all of the problems in this area are yet, let alone the solutions. > And I notice that you haven't substantively responded to some of Tom's > concerns. In particular, I don't think it's a good idea to change eval_const_expression's behavior in an incompatible way that simply makes it differently inconsistent with other IS NULL code paths. We should leave things alone until we have a full fix, otherwise we'll just be breaking people's apps repeatedly. I would also say that allowing eval_const_expression to drive what we think the "right" behavior is is completely backwards, because it's about the least performance-critical case. You should be looking at execQual.c first. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers