From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: new function array_init |
Date: | 2008-06-02 16:46:44 |
Message-ID: | 20173.1212425204@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> There was more time questions about array's initialisation. I propose
> function array_init.
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION array_init(sizes int[], v anyelement)
> RETURNS anyarray;
I think this is basically a good idea, but maybe the API needs a bit of
adjustment --- providing the sizes as an array doesn't seem especially
convenient. Since we only allow up to 6 dimensions (IIRC), what about
six functions with different numbers of parameters:
array_int(int, anyelement)
array_int(int, int, anyelement)
...
array_int(int, int, int, int, int, int, anyelement)
I don't object to having the array-input version too, but seems like in
most cases this way would be easier to use. It wouldn't work well
for providing lower bounds too, but maybe the array-input case is
sufficient for that.
Other thoughts:
* Should the fill value be the first parameter instead of the last?
I'm not sure either way.
* I have a mild preference for "array_fill" instead of "array_init".
* We can handle a null fill value now, but what about nulls in the
dimensions? The alternatives seem to be to return a null array
(not an array of nulls) or throw error.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-06-02 16:47:42 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-06-02 16:45:27 | Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison |