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
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 |