Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> This bug was reported three and a half years ago and apparently
> ignored... but it came to my attention in the IS NULL discussion.
> This patch doesn't address unnest() explicitly, rather it modifies
> ExecMakeTableFunctionResult to treat an isnull return equivalently to an
> all-nulls tuple.
I do not see how you can propose this, which creates an explicit
equivalence between a plain null and an all-nulls row, and simultaneously
advocate that we change IS NULL to remove its treatment of those things
as equivalent.
I think the theory behind the existing code here is that if the SRF wants
its output to be interpreted as an all-nulls row, it can perfectly well
return an all-nulls row. I wonder whether we should address this by
adjusting unnest's behavior instead.
regards, tom lane
