Thus spake Tom Lane
> My guess is that maybe this should not be fixed in the individual
> datatypes at all; instead the generic function and operator code should
> be modified so that if any input value is NULL, then NULL is returned as
> the result without ever calling the datatype-specific code.
Could it be tied to the return type? IOW, functions or operators
that return bool return FALSE, text return "", etc.
> There might be specific operators for which this is not the right
> behavior (although none spring to mind immediately). In that case,
> I think the best bet would be to have a per-operator flag, defaulting
> to OFF, which could be turned on for those specific operators that are
> prepared to cope with null inputs.
Obviously that will have to wait for 6.5 since it requires an initdb
to add the field. Do we want to wait that long?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
