Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null?
Date: 2004-04-02 01:12:23
Message-ID: 200404011712.23382.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe,

> This is correct. There are no dimensions to an empty array by
> definition. The only other way to handle this would be an ERROR. I
> followed the lead of (the pre-existing function) array_dims() when
> creating array_upper() and array_lower().

What about a 0? That seems more consistent to me. If the array is empty,
its dimensions are not "NULL", meaning "unknown", but in fact zero elements,
which is a known value. The way it works now, array_upper on a NULL array
produces the same results as array_upper on an empty-but-non-null array.

Or is there some concept I'm missing?

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2004-04-02 01:50:36 Re: PITR for replication?
Previous Message J. Andrew Rogers 2004-04-02 00:58:28 PITR for replication?