Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: sad <sad@bankir.ru>
Organization: IT
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Subject: Re: feature request ?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:54:05 +0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
Cc: Rosser Schwarz <rosser.schwarz@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: <200406250816.47781.sad@bankir.ru>
	<200406251020.41387.sad@bankir.ru> <40DBE35A.70104@archonet.com>
In-Reply-To: <40DBE35A.70104@archonet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200406251154.05331.sad@bankir.ru>

> sad wrote:
> > On Friday 25 June 2004 09:37, Rosser Schwarz wrote:
> >>On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:16:47 +0400, sad <sad@bankir.ru> wrote:
> >>>>Very simply, a boolean may have to values: true or false.  It's also
> >>>>possible that it's not been set to anything (NULL).
> >>>
> >>>really ?
> >>>what about   (13 < NULL)::BOOL
> >>
> >>Per the semantics of NULL, 13 is neither greater than nor less than
> >>NULL.  NULL is the *unknown* value; it's impossible to meaningfully
> >>compare it to anything else. Try (NULL =3D NULL)::boolean. It's NULL,
> >>also.
> >
> > READ THE THREAD BEFORE ANSWER
>
> WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE HASN'T?

I had answered to the proposal to PROHIBIT NULL VALUES=20

> The key point of argument, and where the problem is with your (13 <
> NULL)::BOOL point is this:

IT IS NOT MY PROBLEM !!! it is an EXAMPLE WHY WE CAN NOT PROHIBIT NULLS !!!