From: | "Webb Sprague" <webb(dot)sprague(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: new function array_init |
Date: | 2008-06-02 17:18:08 |
Message-ID: | b11ea23c0806021018v5be4edb8v3a8294af766d5d0@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> There was more time questions about array's initialisation. I propose
>> function array_init.
As one of the questioners, I will give some short thoughts below.
>> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION array_init(sizes int[], v anyelement)
>> RETURNS anyarray;
+1. +0 for Pavel's proposed syntax, because it feels better, but also
it scales to N dimensions (we should throw an error obviously if the
input is too big, but we can probably source that size through an
include), I hate functions with more than four arguments, and having
six slightly overloaded functions in the system catalogs seems
annoying.
> * We can handle a null fill value now, but what about nulls in the
> dimensions? The alternatives seem to be to return a null array
> (not an array of nulls) or throw error.
I would throw an error, unless there is something that one can do with
a null array (perhaps there is?).
We also might want to consider a resize function, and some other
utilities as long as we are bothering with this.
I am sorry that I can't offer to write these, but I don't have the
time to learn the Postgresql infrastructure to do it.
Thanks for the attention Pavel!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2008-06-02 17:29:30 | Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-06-02 17:10:44 | Re: Outer joins and equivalence |