Re: Weird NULL behavior

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Weird NULL behavior
Date: 2002-11-07 19:35:56
Message-ID: 20021107113216.S99207-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Ludwig Lim wrote:
> >> SELECT CAST ( (NULL*NULL) AS NUMERIC(2,0));
> >> Cannot cast type '"char"' to '"numeric"'
>
> > It seems to me that it's trying to decide on a type
> > for the expression NULL * NULL. It's a NULL, but a
> > NULL of what type?
>
> Yeah, and it's picking "char" (the single-byte datatype), because
> (a) the NULLs are initially regarded as type UNKNOWN, and (b) if we
> don't have any other way to make a decision we try assuming that
> UNKNOWNs are of string category, and (c) the only datatype in string
> category that has a "*" operator is "char".
>
> I am kind of inclined to remove the arithmetic operators on "char"
> (+,-,*,/) in 7.4 --- they don't seem to have any real-world uses,
> and as this example illustrates, they are perfectly positioned to
> capture cases that probably ought to be errors.

That seems to make sense. I assume that they were there so that someone
could treat it as a 1 byte integer?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-07 20:00:51 Re: Weird NULL behavior
Previous Message Joost Witteveen 2002-11-07 19:20:52 pg_dump, no inserts but \copy?