X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072A3D1B19C for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:33:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03578-03 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:33:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web50006.mail.yahoo.com (web50006.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.38.21]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DD7ED1B745 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:32:59 -0300 (ADT) Message-ID: <20040624173259.65980.qmail@web50006.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [69.65.137.210] by web50006.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:32:59 CDT Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:32:59 -0500 (CDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Jaime=20Casanova?= Subject: Re: feature request ? To: Michael Glaesemann , sad Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <6C87495E-C5F6-11D8-B2C1-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-121781288-1088098379=:64413" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30, HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200406/236 X-Sequence-Number: 18181 --0-121781288-1088098379=:64413 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, Tri-valued boolean?? that's not against boolean concept?? i'm not saying that SQL is wrong nor Postgresql has to go beyond standard, i'm just trying to understand this stuff. Why not disallow the ability of boolean fields to be null? thanx in advance, Jaime Casanova Michael Glaesemann wrote: On Jun 24, 2004, at 6:39 PM, sad wrote: > ...IF ELSEIF ELSE > it's all clear > but what about unequality of BOOL type possible value set and IF > alternatives > set In my opinion the short answer is NULL is here because of the SQL standard. The SQL standard does not specify any kind of "IF alternative" for 3-valued logic afaik. Why should PostgreSQL go beyond what the standard specifies in this hairy area? Three-valued logic is something I strive to stay away from to the best of my ability, as it is far too complicated for my feeble mind. Michael Glaesemann grzm myrealbox com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo. Visíta Yahoo! Noticias. --0-121781288-1088098379=:64413 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi all,
 
Tri-valued boolean?? that's not against boolean concept?? i'm not saying that SQL is wrong nor Postgresql has to go beyond standard, i'm just trying to understand this stuff.
 
Why not disallow the ability of boolean fields to be null?
 
thanx in advance,
 
Jaime Casanova


Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 2004, at 6:39 PM, sad wrote:

> ...IF ELSEIF ELSE
> it's all clear
> but what about unequality of BOOL type possible value set and IF
> alternatives
> set

In my opinion the short answer is NULL is here because of the SQL
standard. The SQL standard does not specify any kind of "IF
alternative" for 3-valued logic afaik. Why should PostgreSQL go beyond
what the standard specifies in this hairy area? Three-valued logic is
something I strive to stay away from to the best of my ability, as it
is far too complicated for my feeble mind.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster



Do You Yahoo!?
Todo lo que quieres saber de Estados Unidos, América Latina y el resto del Mundo.
Visíta Yahoo! Noticias.
--0-121781288-1088098379=:64413--