2011/1/5 Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>:
> On Jan5, 2011, at 10:25 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On sön, 2011-01-02 at 12:47 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
>>> The only way around that would be to introduce magic constants "lower", "upper" that
>>> can be used within index expressions and evaluate to the indexed dimension's lower
>>> and upper bound. You'd then use
>>> my_array[upper], my_array[upper-1], ...
>>> to refer to the last, second-to-last, ... element in the array. Actually doing this
>>> could get pretty messy, though - not sure if it's really worth the effort...
>> How about just some functions:
>> array_first(array, dim)
>> array_last(array, dim)
> You image these to return the actual element, not the first and last index value, right?
> Because we already have array_lower() and array_upper() which return the lower and upper
> index bound for a certain dimension.
> A more general solution would be a function
> array_relative(array anyarray, indices int)
I don't think so this design helps. instead maintaining a data array,
you should to maintain a indices array.
> which would return the element indexed by <indices>, where positive indices are assumed to
> be relative to the respective dimension's lower bound and negative indices to the
> upper bound + 1.
> For slices, we could additionally have
> array_relative(array anyarray, indices_start int, indices_end int)
> best regards,
> Florian Pflug
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2011-01-05 12:29:39|
|Subject: Re: We need to log aborted autovacuums|
|Previous:||From: Itagaki Takahiro||Date: 2011-01-05 11:37:25|
|Subject: Re: SQL/MED - core functionality|