On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:55:11PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Is there a TODO here? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jim Nasby wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> However, the test right above that means that we'll fail if the user > > >> tries something like "row_variable := NULL;": > > > > > > The patch you seem to have in mind would allow > > > row_variable := int_variable; > > > to succeed if the int_variable chanced to contain NULL, which is > > > surely > > > not very desirable.
Well, that's Tom's objection, though I'm not sure if by 'int_variable' he means 'internal' or 'integer'. Personally, I think it would be useful to just allow setting a row or record variable to NULL as I showed it above; ie: no variables involved. This is something you might want to do to invalidate a row/record variable after taking some action (perhaps deleting a row). You'd also think that you should be able to detect if a record variable is null, as you can with row. So, I suggest: * Allow row and record variables in plpgsql to be set to NULL It's not clear if it's a wise idea to allow this assignment from a variable. It may be better to only allow explicitly setting them, ie: row_variable := NULL; * Allow testing a record variable to see if it's NULL Currently works for row variables, but not record variables -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster