Received: from postgresql.org.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5CGxAE53562 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:59:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org) Received: from corvette.mascari.com (dhcp065-024-161-045.columbus.rr.com [65.24.161.45]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f57JdsE76687; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:39:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mascarm@mascari.com) Received: from ferrari (ferrari.mascari.com [192.168.2.1]) by corvette.mascari.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA25615; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:31:34 -0400 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:36:21 -0400 Message-ID: <01C0EF67.9A5733D0.mascarm@mascari.com> From: Mike Mascari Reply-To: "mascarm@mascari.com" To: "'Tom Ivar Helbekkmo'" , Tom Lane Cc: Stephan Szabo , Mark Stosberg , "pgsql-sql@postgresql.org" , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Re: behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Standards Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:36:20 -0400 Organization: Mascari Development Inc. X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200106/181 X-Sequence-Number: 3425 The best solution would be to have the ODBC translate instances of '= NULL' into IS NULL before submitting the query to PostgreSQL. I'm sure this is how other vendors, like Oracle handle the issue. Well, probably sure... :-) Mike Mascari mascarm@mascari.com -----Original Message----- From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo [SMTP:tih@kpnQwest.no] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 3:18 PM To: Tom Lane Cc: Stephan Szabo; Mark Stosberg; pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Standards Tom Lane writes: > A compromise answer might be to offer a SET variable that selects the > Microsoft-compatible misimplementation. Would that fly? I'd say that's the best way to handle stuff like this. If you implement something that breaks the standard, to be compatible with arrogant programmers at Microsoft who feel that they are above such things, you're encouraging users to develop bad habits. Better to make them go "SET MICROSOFT BUG COMPATIBILITY ON" first. To see the effect of leniency in re standards, just try to browse around the web with a browser that rejects incorrect HTML! :-)