Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 14:32:13 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: vadym.feskin@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Addition to content
Message-ID: <20201111193213.GA25840@momjian.us>
References: <160486028730.25500.15740897403028593550@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <1984017.1604938199@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1984017.1604938199@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov  9, 2020 at 11:09:59AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> > I would be helpful to add that NULLIF and COALESCE need to be of same data
> > type. 
> 
> That's not actually a correct statement ... which I guess just reinforces
> your point that the behavior needs to be documented.

FYI, this was done in this commit:

	commit 24b83a5082
	Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	Date:   Mon Nov 9 12:02:24 2020 -0500
	
	    Doc: clarify data type behavior of COALESCE and NULLIF.
	
	    After studying the code, NULLIF is a lot more subtle than you might
	    have guessed.
	
	    Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/160486028730.25500.15740897403028593550@wrigleys.postgresql.org

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             https://enterprisedb.com

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee