On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 12:25:38PM +0300, KES wrote: > >or NULL if any of the comparisons result in unknown > result in unknown??
Well, SQL has a three-valued logic, and UNKOWN values are treated like NULL. For me they have always been the same, and I would like to avoid "unknown" in this context, if possible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 13.10.2018, 00:37, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com>: > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:04 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Sorry, but I don't like this wording. The problem is that the > comparison has two row sets --- the left-hand side, and the right-hand > side. > > > Huh...the left hand side must be a non-set scalar or row constructor. > > > Each row on the left-hand side is compared with the row set on > the right. I also don't like people thinking about the result of ANY > since it is really <comparison> ANY that is being used. > > > Then there is some more rewording to be done since: "The result of ANY is > “true” if any true result is obtained." (v10; 9.22.4) > > Maybe: > > The result of ANY is “true” if the comparison returns true for any > subquery > row; otherwise the result is “false” (or NULL if any of the comparisons > result in unknown) > > David J. > > -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
