Bug #765: 'IS NULL' versus '= NULL'
От | pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org |
---|---|
Тема | Bug #765: 'IS NULL' versus '= NULL' |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20020914084315.2DD8A4758C9@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Bug #765: 'IS NULL' versus '= NULL'
Re: Bug #765: 'IS NULL' versus '= NULL' |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Bhuvan A (bhuvansql@myrealbox.com) reports a bug with a severity of 3 The lower the number the more severe it is. Short Description 'IS NULL' versus '= NULL' Long Description I am using postgresql 7.2.1. I suppose NULL keyword refers nullity (null values) in general. 'IS NULL' and '= NULL' behaves differently in where conditions in SELECT sql, but behaves as expected in UPDATE sql. Considerthis case. > select count(*) from my_table where id is NULL; count ------- 0 (1 row) > select count(*) from my_table where id = NULL; count ------- 0 (1 row) > select count(*) from my_table where id in (NULL); count ------- 0 (1 row) > update my_table set id = NULL where id = 12; UPDATE 1 > select count(*) from my_table where id is NULL; count ------- 1 (1 row) > select count(*) from my_table where id = NULL; count ------- 0 (1 row) > select count(*) from my_table where id in (NULL); count ------- 0 (1 row) Eventhough my_table contain a record with id as null, the last 2 sqls are not resulting that record. Why? Maybe my understandingwould be wrong on this behaviour, if so please kindly apologize and give some description on this difference,since i dont have answer in the documentation. TIA. regards, bhuvaneswaran Sample Code No file was uploaded with this report
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: