Received: from bologna.nettuno.it (bologna.nettuno.it [193.43.2.1]) by hub.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA25706 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 10:13:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from sferac@bo.nettuno.it) Received: from proxy.sferacarta.com (mail@sfcabop1.nettuno.it [193.207.10.213]) by bologna.nettuno.it (8.8.6/8.8.6/NETTuno 3.1) with ESMTP id QAA11539; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:12:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from blu.sferacarta.com (mail.sferacarta.com) [10.20.30.12] by proxy.sferacarta.com with smtp (Exim 1.92 #1 (Debian)) id 0zYCLk-0002a1-00; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:52:04 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 16:01:11 +0100 From: Sferacarta Software X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.017) UNREG Reply-To: Sferacarta Software Organization: Sferacarta Software Priority: Normal Message-ID: <17667.981027@bo.nettuno.it> To: "Thomas G. Lockhart" , Byron Nikolaidis , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re[2]: [HACKERS] Re: [INTERFACES] Odbc parser error References: <3634B139.FF7CAF7D@alumni.caltech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Thomas, luned́, 26 ottobre 98, you wrote: >> JS> Yes, I would to suggest a way to solve this problem because in >> JS> Access we can't link two tables by a numeric field >> JS> # conn=75511800, query='SELECT "order_detail"."numero" FROM >> JS> "order_detail" WHERE ("numero" = NULL )' >> JS> I know this is not standard but Access understand both syntaxes >> JS> SELECT * FROM table WHERE field IS NULL; >> JS> SELECT * FROM table WHERE field = NULL; >> JS> Why not to get PostgreSQL to understand it also ? >> Done. I modify the pgsql/src/backend/gram.y >> How about to add it to official release ? TGL> Or, how about insisting that your commercial software suppliers conform TGL> to one of the simplest and clearest part of the SQL standard they claim TGL> to support? Instead of using those suppliers who insist on making small TGL> and large incompatibilities in their popular software packages to ensure TGL> that only their own products can interoperate with them? You are right Tom, but you know there is no way to have something from those bastards, I prefer to talk with a wall. TGL> *slap* Ow! Ok, Ok! TGL> It looks like a nice patch. But it is too late to get it into v6.4. It TGL> looks like a good addition to v6.5... TGL> *slap* OW! OK! TGL> In fact, it is such a nice feature that I'm sure it will fit nicely into TGL> v6.4.1, and you are welcome to submit a patchset to post on TGL> postgresql.org to fix v6.4. TGL> *grin* TGL> It would be best to include patches for both gram.y and a full gram.c so TGL> that users may not have to rebuild the parser. Also, if we run into TGL> parser syntax conflicts in the future it would be a candidate for TGL> removal, I suppose. Should I send the patch now or after v6.4 is released ? Jose'