> Thus spake Tom Lane
> > My guess is that maybe this should not be fixed in the individual
> > datatypes at all; instead the generic function and operator code should
> > be modified so that if any input value is NULL, then NULL is returned as
> > the result without ever calling the datatype-specific code.
>
> Could it be tied to the return type? IOW, functions or operators
> that return bool return FALSE, text return "", etc.
>
> > There might be specific operators for which this is not the right
> > behavior (although none spring to mind immediately). In that case,
> > I think the best bet would be to have a per-operator flag, defaulting
> > to OFF, which could be turned on for those specific operators that are
> > prepared to cope with null inputs.
>
> Obviously that will have to wait for 6.5 since it requires an initdb
> to add the field. Do we want to wait that long?
The only thing I can add here is to look at the other functions, and do
what they do.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
