Sam Mason wrote: > > You're intentionally assuming that row(null) IS NULL evaluating to true > > implies that row(null) can be replaced by NULL. As discussed upthread, this > > is not the case. > > But you've still not said how is this useful! To me, IS NULL applied to rows, as a test of combined-nullnesss of the columns inside the row, doesn't indeed look like something I'd use on a regular basis, if at all. But I'll use IS DISTINCT FROM NULL on records. I sympathize with the opinion that the standard "hijacks" the IS NULL operator for rows in a way that is problematic (though not unworkable). But who cares if it's not useful to some, or even to the majority? The standard opted for that definition years ago, and also PG opted to implement it. It's too late. Best regards, -- Daniel PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
