Re: NULL in arrays

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NULL in arrays
Date: 2004-01-15 15:29:52
Message-ID: 22226.1074180592@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:
> dennis=# INSERT INTO foo VALUES (ARRAY[2,NULL]);
> INSERT 25353 1

> That last insert contains a NULL value which are not allowed in arrays and
> yet a insert is performed. The table contains a NULL value afterwards
> (and no array).

As we used to say at HP, this is not a bug, it's a definition
disagreement. You need to give a coherent argument why we should
change, not just claim it's wrong.

Given the present lack of support for null elements in arrays, it's
impossible to have any really pleasant behavior in cases like this.
But I don't see an inherent reason why "raise an error" is better than
"return a null array".

I think Joe Conway is planning to tackle that underlying misfeature
for 7.5. Whenever it happens, it will result in a number of behavioral
changes for arrays. I'm not eager to move the definition around in the
meantime, especially not in dot-releases.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2004-01-15 15:57:48 Re: BUG #1049: Invalid SQL Executed as JDBC Prepared Statement still executes embedded SQL
Previous Message Dennis Bjorklund 2004-01-15 13:02:46 Re: NULL in arrays