| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
| Date: | 2013-04-03 18:58:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1365015517.369.YahooMailNeo@web162905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> wrote:
> Anyhow, I think we should standardise on zero as the initial
> index to be as consistent as practicable.
If you want to suggest a default of zero for the first subscript of
an array in SQL, please don't confuse the issue by using any form
of the word "standard" in that proposal. There are ANSI and ISO
standards for SQL, and they require that the first element of an
array is one. I'm OK with *extending* the standard by *allowing*
other values, but let's not flaunt the standard and break existing
code by changing the *default*.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2013-04-03 19:03:03 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2013-04-03 18:58:09 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |