On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 08:26:54AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 04:24:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > I think this needs some serious research.
> >
> > We've discussed this topic before. The spec's definition of IS [NOT]
> > NULL for composite
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 04:24:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I think this needs some serious research.
>
> We've discussed this topic before. The spec's definition of IS [NOT]
> NULL for composite values is bizarre to say the least. I think
> there's been an intentional
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 04:24:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I think this needs some serious research.
>
> We've discussed this topic before. The spec's definition of IS [NOT]
> NULL for composite values is bizarre to say the least. I think
> there's been an intentional
Bruce Momjian writes:
> I think this needs some serious research.
We've discussed this topic before. The spec's definition of IS [NOT]
NULL for composite values is bizarre to say the least. I think
there's been an intentional choice to keep most NOT NULL checks
"simple", that is we look at the
On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 01:39:44PM +, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/sql-createdomain.html
> Description:
>
> The manual claims:
>
> The syntax NOT NULL in this command is a Postgr
