| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: array functions - request for opinions (was Re: [PATCHES] array |
| Date: | 2003-05-26 16:40:00 |
| Message-ID: | 2162.1053967200@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> In both cases I think it's mostly a matter of defining a defensible
>> behavior, which is probably not that hard, but no one's yet gotten
>> annoyed enough to try to fix it.
> It is probably easy enough to work around in the array concatenation
> functions. Would it be defensible to say that ('{}'::int4[] || 2) should
> produce ('{2}'::int4[]), i.e. a one-dimensional integer array with one
> element?
You would also have to assume that the subscript lower bound is one,
which doesn't bother me but is an additional bit of state that has to
appear out of nowhere. (In the assignment case you don't have to assume
that, since the subscript tells you what to do.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-05-26 16:50:10 | Re: Bug(s) or not? |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-05-26 16:32:12 | Re: array functions - request for opinions (was Re: [PATCHES] |