On Fri, Aug 29, 2025, at 22:42, David G. Johnston wrote: > I think the file location is fine but have an idea for where within the > file to place this: or rather a minor re-working of these so three > variants that do the same test aren't spread across the whole page. > ...docs diff...
I like the idea of merging "IS NULL" with "ISNULL" and "IS NOT NULL" with "NOTNULL", to make it clear they are the same thing but with standard/non-standard syntax. Not so sure about moving nonnull() from Table 9.3. Comparison Functions up to Table 9.2. Comparison Predicates, since it's a function, so 9.3 feels more suitable. > I do have a concern regarding its treatment of composites/row-valued > inputs (i.e. is this considered IS NOT NULL or IS DISTINCT FROM NULL) I think the semantics for the new function should be to error-on-null, where the input strictly needs to be NULL to get an error, since then it's possible to use such function for the assert single row use-case even for functions that returns table / setof. I do share your concern due to the current naming of the function though. How about renaming it to error_on_null(anyelement) -> anyelement instead? That way, we avoid the ambiguity coming from what "nonnull" would mean, since it's only NULL that IS NULL. > The subject of this thread also is only tangentially related to the patch now. Yeah, I think we should start a new thread for the patch, but holding onto that until we've worked out what the function should be named and what semantics we think it should have. /Joel
