On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Right at the moment, if we stick with the historical definition
>>> of the function, *both* camps have to write out their choice of
>>> the above. Seems like this is the worst of all possible worlds.
>>> We should probably pick one or the other.
>
>> ISTM there are three camps.
>
> If there's a camp that actually *wants* a NULL result for this case,
> I missed the reasoning. AFAICS we can either say that every application
> is going to have to put in a CASE wrapper around this function, or say
> that we'll make it do the right thing for some of them and the rest have
> to put the same wrapper around it.
So that we don't break existing apps because of an issue that is
trivial to work around.
...Robert
