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

Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:00:04 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MS Access vs IS NULL (was Re: [BUGS] Bug in SQL functions that use a
	NULL parameter directly)
> 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

Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:54:25 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: MS Access vs IS NULL (was Re: [BUGS] Bug in SQL functions that
	use a NULL parameter directly)