| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
| Date: | 2013-04-03 14:02:13 |
| Message-ID: | 7DC4282D-DFF2-4110-8DD0-B40CAA57CBFC@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr3, 2013, at 15:30 , Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 02:46 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> If we're going to break compatibility, we should IMHO get rid of
>> non-zero lower bounds all together. My guess is that the number of
>> affected users wouldn't be much higher than for the proposed patch,
>> and it'd allow lossless mapping to most language's native array types…
>
> That would actually break a HUGE number of users, since the default lower
> bound is 1. I have seen any number of pieces if code that rely on that.
Uh, yeah, we should make it 1 then, not 0, then. As long as the bound
is fixed, conversion to native C/Java/Ruby/Python/... arrays would still
be lossless.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-03 14:10:35 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-04-03 14:00:01 | Re: Page replacement algorithm in buffer cache |