| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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 19:39:56 |
| Message-ID: | E79E2CC9-2A2C-46EF-81E3-7DF25794B0C0@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-12 19:42:57 | Re: WIP: Range Types |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2011-01-12 19:36:28 | Re: pg_depend explained |