[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> But doesn't "x IN (NULL)" already fail to ever match, similar to "x
> = NULL"? (Assuming that compatibility switch isn't enabled)
The case I'm worried about is "x IN (1,2,NULL)". This *can* match.
Also, it's supposed to return NULL (not FALSE) if it doesn't match.
So simply discarding NULLs before we build the array wouldn't give
the right answer.
Considering that allowing null array entries has been a big wishlist
item for many years, I don't think that anyone will object to fixing
that in 8.2, anyway ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
