On 29/10/2015 04:02, Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Arno Brinkman [mailto:fbsupp...@abvisie.nl]
>> Sent: Miércoles, 28 de Octubre de 2015 21:27
>>
>> I've to dig deep in my memory (ooh boy), but i think the
>> stream flag NULL is
>> not treated proper in this
Hi Claudio,
> After reading Adriano's mail, I stopped looking at v2.5.
> :-)
> I think the case can be summarized and optimized:
> given
> T = table
> V = the result of a selectable proc, view or derived table,
> if T left join V produces a null record in V caused by a non-matching
> outer
> jo
> -Original Message-
> From: Arno Brinkman [mailto:fbsupp...@abvisie.nl]
> Sent: Miércoles, 28 de Octubre de 2015 21:27
>
> I've to dig deep in my memory (ooh boy), but i think the
> stream flag NULL is
> not treated proper in this case.
>
> Thinking i've fixed something simular or eve
Hi Claudio,
Simplified test case:
SELECT
dt.*
FROM
RDB$DATABASE
LEFT JOIN (SELECT COALESCE(RDB$SECURITY_CLASS, 'NO WAY') AS COALESCE_RET,
'YES THIS TO' AS CONST_RET FROM RDB$DATABASE WHERE 1=1) dt ON (1 = 0);
Result:
COALESCE_RET
CONST_RET
--
Em 28/10/2015 20:31, Claudio Valderrama C. escreveu:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Adriano dos Santos Fernandes [mailto:adrian...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Martes, 27 de Octubre de 2015 6:40
>>
>> The problem is that we can't go to evaluate blr_coalesce for a "null
>> stream".
>
> Yes, I thoug
> -Original Message-
> From: Adriano dos Santos Fernandes [mailto:adrian...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Martes, 27 de Octubre de 2015 6:40
>
> The problem is that we can't go to evaluate blr_coalesce for a "null
> stream".
Yes, I thought so but there are two cases with a null stream:
- coalesce
On 27/10/2015 05:21, Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:
>
> My wish for FB v4 is that we stop using nod_value_if for coalesce (and for
> the CASE statement) and instead we implement a new verb. Among other things,
> it will avoid reevaluating expressions and will give us more freedom to fix
> things.
>
>
