From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Rich Hall <rhall@micropat.com>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: FW: "=" operator vs. "IS"
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:27:48 +0200
Message-ID: <200406291827.48502.peter_e@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40E17C81.3090308@micropat.com>
References: <7A4ADADFC8AFF0478D47F63BEDD57CE33A320C@gpmail.gphq.genpathpharma.com>
<40E17C81.3090308@micropat.com>
Rich Hall wrote:
> My question is why is the form
>
> "(anything) = NULL"
>
> allowed?
>
> Since
>
> "(anything) = NULL" is always Null, this cannot be what the coder
> intended.
Using that same line of argument, why is 1+1 allowed? The coder clearly
knows that it is 2, so why is he writing that? Many queries are
generated by automatic tools that definitely intend what they say.
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: peter_e@gmx.net, rhall@micropat.com
Subject: Re: FW: "=" operator vs. "IS"
In-Reply-To: <200406291827.48502.peter_e@gmx.net>
* 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