Re: Some array semantics issues

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Some array semantics issues
Date: 2005-11-19 05:35:03
Message-ID: 437EB987.9060708@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Given the just-committed changes to avoid having array_push/array_cat
> generate non-spec lower bounds unnecessarily, do you still think it's
> important to have a variant of array comparison that ignores lower
> bounds?
>
> ISTM that ignoring lower bounds is definitely something that violates
> the principle of least surprise. There was an ease-of-use argument
> for it before, but now that we changed the other thing I think we don't
> need such a kluge.

I agree. At this point, having an array with other than 1 as a lower
bound takes a very conscious decision. I'd think that if you cared that
much about the lower bound, you'd not want to ignore it when it comes to
comparison.

Joe

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2005-11-19 09:49:53 Materialized views (Was Re: Improving count(*))
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-11-19 03:33:38 Re: order by, for custom types