Re: [HACKERS] x = NULL

2001-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm getting tired of this, so unless someone can present a reason not to, > I'll implement a GUC parameter to turn this off -- and turn it off by > default. You'll have to push the switch-driven transformation into analyze.c --- it is not okay for gr

Re: [HACKERS] x = NULL

2001-09-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I'm getting tired of this, so unless someone can present a reason not to, I'll implement a GUC parameter to turn this off -- and turn it off by default. I wrote: > The x = NULL hack keeps biting people. Innocent people should not be > exposed to incorrect behaviour because of (supposed) MS Acce

Re: [HACKERS] x = NULL

2001-09-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
> > The x = NULL hack keeps biting people. Innocent people > should not be > > exposed to incorrect behaviour because of (supposed) MS Access > > breakage. I strongly urge that we do one of the following: > > > > 1) Provide a tunable knob to turn this on (cf. KSQO) > > > > 2) Confine this to t

Re: [HACKERS] x = NULL

2001-09-10 Thread Joe Conway
> The x = NULL hack keeps biting people. Innocent people should not be > exposed to incorrect behaviour because of (supposed) MS Access breakage. > I strongly urge that we do one of the following: > > 1) Provide a tunable knob to turn this on (cf. KSQO) > > 2) Confine this to the ODBC driver some