From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: new function array_init |
Date: | 2008-06-04 20:22:11 |
Message-ID: | 162867790806041322n6e34b701r5ec2531a5fa1de22@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/6/4 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I put fill value on end, because it is like default value:
>
>> array_set(array[2,2]);
>> array_set(array[2,2], 0);
>
> Huh? That's completely nonsensical ... where will you determine the
> type of the array, if you don't have a sample element?
it is nonsens in current postgres. But null array is castable to anyarray no?
>
> The fact that the fill value is determining the array type is why
> it seems important enough to put first.
>
I agree - first is most important parameter. But I am not sure, that
is it. size or value. An I am strong fixed on C, Intel notation where
destination is first and value is second.
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-06-04 20:28:08 | Re: Change lock requirements for adding a trigger |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-04 20:12:05 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |