From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: jbarnett@pobox.com <jbarnett@pobox.com>
Cc: 'herouth maoz' <herouth@oumail.openu.ac.il>
Cc: 'pgsql-interfaces@hub.org' <pgsql-interfaces@hub.org>
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC next() method
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 12:00:46 -0400
Message-ID: <23824.924969646@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01BE8E3F.959B0140.jbarnett@pobox.com>
Jon Barnett <jbarnett@pobox.com> writes:
> From a practicalities point of view, if the result is not compliant
> with the SQL standard, the question is whether to hide it in the
> abstraction layer (JDBC driver) or fix it at the source
If you can demonstrate that this behavior [NULL result from aggregate
functions] is not compliant with the SQL92 standard, then the Postgres
backend will get fixed.
There's been discussion of this point before on the hackers list,
with some people feeling that the current behavior is OK and others
not happy with it, but so far no one has made a convincing case about
what the standard expects.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jbarnett@pobox.com, herouth@oumail.openu.ac.il, pgsql-interfaces@hub.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC next() method
In-Reply-To: <23824.924969646@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox