| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2013-03-28 00:04:55 |
| Message-ID: | 9754.1364429095@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 28 March 2013 09:39, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Maybe. But even in 1-D, it's still jumping from having one empty array
>> to infinitely many starting at different indexes, e.g., '{}'::int[] !=
>> '[4:3]={}'::int[]. There may be a certain logic to that, but I'm not
>> convinced about its usefulness.
> We already have the ability to define lower bounds other than 1 on
> arrays, and it would be inconsistent to allow that for arrays with
> elements, but not for arrays without.
Yeah, if '[1:1]={0}'::int[] is distinct from '[2:2]={0}'::int[],
it's a bit hard to argue that '[1:0]={}'::int[] must not be
distinct from '[2:1]={}'::int[]. If we were doing this from scratch
we might drop the whole notion of nondefault lower bounds, but that
ship sailed ages ago.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-03-28 01:00:43 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow external recovery_config_directory |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2013-03-27 23:24:17 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |