Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: David E(dot) Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]
Date: 2011-01-12 19:51:43
Message-ID: 1294861755-sup-7851@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of mié ene 12 16:39:56 -0300 2011:
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> >> [ Id actually vote for _not_ having a compatibility option at all, we
> >> change more major things than this IMHO every major release. (And even
> >> then some major things in minor releases, for example the removal of
> >> Safe.pm) ]
> >
> > I think the main question here is: how loudly is existing code going to
> > break? If the breakage is silent, it's going to be very problematic.
> > If functions fail to run at all, then we can live without the
> > compatibility option.
>
> I suspect it'd be quiet, unfortunately, since there are a bazillion ad hoc implementations of a Perl SQL array parser, and many of them, I suspect, don't complain if the string doesn't look like an SQL array. They would just parse a string like "ARRAY(0x118ee2a0)" and return an empty array, or a NULL.

I kinda doubt that a function failing in that way would pass any
testing.

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-01-12 19:52:21 Re: WIP: Range Types
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-01-12 19:42:57 Re: WIP: Range Types