On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I am checking PLpgSQL ToDo topics, and I am not sure if this topic
isn't done. And if not, then I would to get some detail.
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 09:44 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote:
My take on this is that we are stuck with the status quo. If a
change
must be done, the 'is null' change should be reverted to un-standard
behavior. The SQL standard position on this issue is, IMNSHO, on
mars.
As someone who's
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
Seriously though, I think that we should stick as closely to the
letter of the standard as possible here (or, if there is
ambiguity, pick one reasonable interpretation). NULL semantics are
confusing enough without everyone making their own subtle tweaks.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
Seriously though, I think that we should stick as closely to the
letter of the standard as possible here (or, if there is
ambiguity, pick one reasonable interpretation). NULL
Hello
I am checking PLpgSQL ToDo topics, and I am not sure if this topic
isn't done. And if not, then I would to get some detail.
Now there is possible to test row's variable on NULL, now it is
possible to assign NULL to row variable. What we can do more?
a) There is small difference between
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I am checking PLpgSQL ToDo topics, and I am not sure if this topic
isn't done. And if not, then I would to get some detail.
I think that thread petered out because we didn't have consensus on
what the behavior ought to be. It goes back to whether
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
I am checking PLpgSQL ToDo topics, and I am not sure if this topic
isn't done. And if not, then I would to get some detail.
I think that thread petered out because we didn't have
