From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Number of dimensions of an array parameter |
Date: | 2006-05-08 18:19:54 |
Message-ID: | 28536.1147112394@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> writes:
> Would it be hard to enforce a real check? The implementation could use
> GUC settings like 'enforce_array_dimensions' and 'enforce_array_lengths'
> that could be set to false for the legacy implementations that rely on
> the current behavior.
The fact that it doesn't exactly match Java semantics does not make it
"legacy behavior". I don't agree that it's a bug; I think it's a
feature, precisely because many functions can work on arrays of
different dimensions. Why should we change to make PL/Java happier,
when it will move us further away from the semantics of, say, PL/R?
I think reasonable choices for PL/Java would be to reject
multidimensional array arguments, or to silently ignore the
dimensionality and treat the data as 1-D in storage order
(as I think plperl for instance already does).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-08 18:24:52 | Re: Pragma linking? |
Previous Message | elein | 2006-05-08 18:15:04 | Re: bug? non working casts for domain |