> sad wrote: > > On Friday 25 June 2004 09:37, Rosser Schwarz wrote: > >>On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:16:47 +0400, sad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>Very simply, a boolean may have to values: true or false. It's also > >>>>possible that it's not been set to anything (NULL). > >>> > >>>really ? > >>>what about (13 < NULL)::BOOL > >> > >>Per the semantics of NULL, 13 is neither greater than nor less than > >>NULL. NULL is the *unknown* value; it's impossible to meaningfully > >>compare it to anything else. Try (NULL = NULL)::boolean. It's NULL, > >>also. > > > > READ THE THREAD BEFORE ANSWER > > WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE HASN'T?
I had answered to the proposal to PROHIBIT NULL VALUES > The key point of argument, and where the problem is with your (13 < > NULL)::BOOL point is this: IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM !!! it is an EXAMPLE WHY WE CAN NOT PROHIBIT NULLS !!! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
