From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Empty arrays with ARRAY[] |
Date: | 2007-11-27 15:52:17 |
Message-ID: | 37ed240d0711270752g50218526u5ae1db2c8395782e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
So far I've only considered the '::' cast syntax suggested in the
original proposal, e.g.:
ARRAY[]::text[]
I wonder whether we are also interested in catching CAST(), e.g.:
CAST(ARRAY[] AS text[])
I'm personally okay with leaving it at support for '::', but
admittedly I am heavily biased towards this syntax (I find CAST very
ugly). I suppose supporting CAST as well would be the more
predictable behaviour; I think people might be surprised if we
supported one form of casting but not the other.
Comments?
Regards,
BJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-27 15:56:01 | Re: [GENERAL] Empty arrays with ARRAY[] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-27 15:52:10 | Re: autovacuum process blocks without reporting a deadlock |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-11-27 15:52:40 | Re: PG 8.3beta3 Segmentation Fault during Database Restore |
Previous Message | Hubert FONGARNAND | 2007-11-27 15:41:07 | Re: PostGreSQL and recursive queries... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-27 15:56:01 | Re: [GENERAL] Empty arrays with ARRAY[] |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2007-11-27 14:55:50 | Re: Proposed patch for operator lookup caching |