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.
>> I think that thread petered out because we didn't have consensus on
>> what the behavior ought to be.  It goes back to whether there is
>> supposed to be a difference between NULL and ROW(NULL,NULL,NULL,...)
> I think somewhere along the line it was noticed that SQL says you are
> supposed to treat (null, null) as null and the behavior of 'is null'
> operator was changed to reflect this while other null influenced
> behaviors were left intact (for example, coalesce()).
> 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 wanted this... what if we had a dedicated function to tell you 
if a row variable had been defined? I definitely don't like the though of 
creating something that effectively duplicates IS NULL, but I'd much rather 
that than continue not having the ability to tell if a row/record variable has 
been set or not.
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to