Re: why the need for is null? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: why the need for is null?
Date
Msg-id 22175.1073282118@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: why the need for is null?  ("Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com>)
List pgsql-general
"Chris Travers" <chris@travelamericas.com> writes:
> Minor correction to Christopher Browne's post:
> It is currently possible to set PostgreSQL to evaluate x = NULL as x IS
> NULL.

Also, while I'm not totally sure about the behavior of SQL Server,
we have been told that its recent releases are spec-compliant on NULL
handling.  The fact that 'transform_null_equals' exists (and was even
the default PG behavior for awhile) arises from the fact that some older
versions of MS Access expect this behavior.  Presumably that means that
MS has at some point shipped a database that behaves that way ...

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Cursor Not Found
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 7.4.1 incredibly slow :-(