> From Andreas' comments, it seems that for his application he would like
> a different behavior, but frankly I'm not certain why the current
> behavior would be detrimental in the use case he mentioned. If SQL92
> requires that any query with "= NULL" be rejected as illegal
You don't mean me, n
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Clearly it is not the case that "this kluge surprises everyone except
> those who already know it exists."
How can you argue that, when the topic comes up again every couple of
months?
regards, tom lane
--
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But since the construct is not allowed (or useless), why would
> anyone feel they need to use it?
Because it isn't entirely useless, actually. I agree that no
programmer in his right mind would write, by hand, a comparison
involving NULL, knowing th
