so 30. 8. 2025 v 9:46 odesÃlatel Joel Jacobson <j...@compiler.org> napsal:
> 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? > +1 Pavel > > 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 >
