From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: array surprising behavior |
Date: | 2004-02-04 19:06:29 |
Message-ID: | 402142B5.3050800@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think this is most surprising behavior -- shouldn't the UPDATE raise
> an error?
Surprising, but not new (probably has been there back to the Berkley
code), and has come up before on one of the lists (I think it might even
have been pgsql-bugs).
regression=# select version();
version
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.3.5 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (GCC) 3.2.2
20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5)
(1 row)
regression=# create table foo (a int[]);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# insert into foo values (null);
INSERT 1104092 1
regression=# update foo set a[3] = '42';
UPDATE 1
regression=# select a, a is null from foo;
a | ?column?
---+----------
| t
(1 row)
I'm still hoping to scrounge up the time to continue working on arrays
for 7.5, including figuring out how to deal with this.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-02-04 19:22:05 | Re: implemented missing bitSetBit() and bitGetBit() |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-02-04 18:41:03 | Re: Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint |