Re: comparing rows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From The Hermit Hacker
Subject Re: comparing rows
Date
Msg-id Pine.BSF.4.21.0008031321070.497-100000@thelab.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: comparing rows  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I thought our only kludge was allowing = NULL because we got tons of MS
> > folks complaining in the past before we did this.  Are you thinking that
> > the newer MS versions will not give us a problem.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure.  Magnus is saying that the newer MS servers default
> to spec-compliant semantics --- ie, foo = NULL will yield NULL.  But
> IIRC the original complaints were because MS tools like Access would
> *generate* this expression and expect it to behave like foo IS NULL.
> 
> Can MS have fixed all their apps already?  Seems unlikely.  Maybe we
> have to leave the kluge in there awhile longer.

I kind of agree with your original comment about removing the kludge,
since the kludge does go against the spec ...

... a couple of thoughts to that effect:

1. this won't be 'in effect' until v7.1 comes out anyway
2. v7.0.2 will still have the kludge and will be available if ppl *really*  need it, no?

My vote is to go with Tom on this and remove the kludge ...




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: bit/varbit stuff
Next
From: Roland Roberts
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: random() function produces wrong range