MS Access vs IS NULL (was Re: [BUGS] Bug in SQL functions that use a NULL parameter directly)
Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
Because of Access's brokenness, the parser or some other layer of the
code "fixes" explicit = NULL (ie, in the actually query string) into
IS NULL which is the correct way to check for nulls.
Because your original query was = $1, it doesn't do the mangling of the
SQL to change into IS NULL when $1 is NULL. The fact that we do that
conversion at all actually breaks spec a little bit but we have little
choice with broken clients.
It seems to me that we heard awhile ago that Access no longer generates
these non-spec-compliant queries --- ie, it does say IS NULL now rather
than the other thing. If so, it seems to me that we ought to remove the
parser's = NULL hack, so that we have spec-compliant NULL behavior.
Anyone recall anything about that? A quick search of my archives didn't
turn up the discussion that I thought I remembered.
regards, tom lane
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: Pine.BSF.4.21.0101141030320.12140-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.comReference msg id not found: Pine.BSF.4.21.0101141030320.12140-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Anyone recall anything about that? A quick search of my archives didn't
turn up the discussion that I thought I remembered.
Hmm. Maybe now we know what you dream about at night ;)
- Thomas
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: Pine.BSF.4.21.0101141030320.12140-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com