From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Some array semantics issues |
Date: | 2005-11-19 01:56:13 |
Message-ID: | 15714.1132365373@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> [ this is back up-thread a bit ]
> And changing that would make it harder to test just the contents of the array
> without having to match bounds as well. That is, You couldn't say "list =
> '{1,2}'" to test if the array contained 1,2. You would have to, well, I'm not
> even sure how you would test it actually. Maybe something kludgy like
> "'{}'::int[] || list = '{1,2}'" ?
Given the just-committed changes to avoid having array_push/array_cat
generate non-spec lower bounds unnecessarily, do you still think it's
important to have a variant of array comparison that ignores lower
bounds?
ISTM that ignoring lower bounds is definitely something that violates
the principle of least surprise. There was an ease-of-use argument
for it before, but now that we changed the other thing I think we don't
need such a kluge.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-19 02:17:02 | Re: someone working to add merge? |
Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2005-11-19 01:24:25 | Re: order by, for custom types |