On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 02:06:02PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote: > 3) If we decide the sql standard is correct, so that (null, null) is > null == true, then we should observe rule 1 and make things work in > consistent way. This means, for example, that null::foo and (null, > null)::foo should not be distinct.
The more awkward case (to me anyway) is that the standard says (1,NULL) IS NULL should evaluate to TRUE. I'd never noticed the ROW / RECORD dichotomy before; could one of these be made SQL compatible and the other use more sane semantics? -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
