From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should array_length() Return NULL |
Date: | 2013-03-16 18:19:39 |
Message-ID: | 24455.1363457979@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 16 March 2013 09:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The thing is that that syntax creates an array of zero dimensions,
>> not one that has 1 dimension and zero elements.
> I'm going to ask the question that immediately comes to mind: Is there
> anything good at all about being able to define a zero-dimensional
> array?
Perhaps not. I think for most uses, a 1-D zero-length array would be
just as good. I guess what I'd want to know is whether we also need
to support higher-dimensional zero-size arrays, and if so, what does
the I/O syntax for those look like?
Another fly in the ointment is that if we do redefine '{}' as meaning
something other than a zero-D array, how will we handle existing
database entries that are zero-D arrays?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2013-03-16 18:21:11 | Re: Should array_length() Return NULL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-16 18:04:25 | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |