Re: Document NULL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Document NULL
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwaULsfcG=9JmuGO7VXvTOH8hxsuGhwq2zASAYi48SmfRA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Document NULL  (Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>)
Responses Re: Document NULL
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 6, 2026 at 12:11 PM Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br> wrote:
Em ter., 11 de nov. de 2025 às 12:34, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> escreveu:
I have rebased this; here's v9.  I haven't reviewed it in depth, but
intend to give it a read and get it pushed sometime in the
not-too-distant future, so if anybody wants to review it some more, it'd
be appreciated.

- Reading this document I see that he uses "the empty string" but DOCs uses more "an empty string". 
Then a few minutes ago I sent a patch [1] to use "an empty string" instead of "the empty string". 
If that patch is accepted then this could be done here too.

That patch probably isn't going in and the two phrasing do tend to denote different things even if being correct is hard.  I made a couple of tweaks but in any case either wording tends to adequately convey the necessary meaning.
 
- I think using several commands and their results in a <programlisting> is difficult to read, 
mainly because some commands result on 2 or more lines, some an empty line, 
so it is difficult to see what command generated what result. Maybe separate them into 2 blocks, maybe.
 

I decided to do manual inline comments in the output where it seemed necessary.  Let's see how that plays out.

Version 10 attached as a single patch (just needs a commit message)

I brought the introductory paragraph current.
Notably, I went with "Null" as the \pset display null value instead of \N (find-replace and fixes, did not re-run commands in psql, looks correct though and it is fairly mechanical).

David J.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] llvmjit: always add the simplifycfg pass
Next
From: Zsolt Parragi
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice