4452000f31
The SQL standard appears to specify that IS [NOT] NULL's tests of field nullness are non-recursive, ie, we shouldn't consider that a composite field with value ROW(NULL,NULL) is null for this purpose. ExecEvalNullTest got this right, but eval_const_expressions did not, leading to weird inconsistencies depending on whether the expression was such that the planner could apply constant folding. Also, adjust the docs to mention that IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM NULL can be used as a substitute test if a simple null check is wanted for a rowtype argument. That motivated reordering things so that IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM is described before IS [NOT] NULL. In HEAD, I went a bit further and added a table showing all the comparison-related predicates. Per bug #14235. Back-patch to all supported branches, since it's certainly undesirable that constant-folding should change the semantics. Report and patch by Andrew Gierth; assorted wordsmithing and revised regression test cases by me. Report: <20160708024746.1410.57282@wrigleys.postgresql.org> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| KNOWN_BUGS | ||
| MISSING_FEATURES | ||
| Makefile | ||
| TODO | ||
| bug.template | ||