Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 at 01:48, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Isn't there a psycopg3 bug here
>> too, that it's not coping with a null default sanely?
> As far as I can see, psycopg3 reports the distinction between nulls
> and empty strings ok: see the "compiled" values in this sample. Or
> maybe I didn't understand your observation?
If the null parameter gets passed through cleanly, why don't we end
up with connectOptions2 inserting the correct value (line 1257 as
of HEAD)? It's possible that there's more than one thing going
wrong here, but I don't really understand why the existing code is
leading to a failure.
regards, tom lane
