Re: NULL in arrays

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NULL in arrays
Date: 2004-01-15 18:21:38
Message-ID: 4006DA32.4010800@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Tom Lane wrote:
> As we used to say at HP, this is not a bug, it's a definition
> disagreement. You need to give a coherent argument why we should
> change, not just claim it's wrong.

Additionally, this behavior was discussed during the 7.4 development and
beta cycles on at least a couple occassions -- that would have been the
time to complain, not now. For example, see this thread during beta:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-07/msg00747.php

> Given the present lack of support for null elements in arrays, it's
> impossible to have any really pleasant behavior in cases like this.
> But I don't see an inherent reason why "raise an error" is better than
> "return a null array".

In fact, the above referenced thread shows a scenario where the former
behavior is unpleasant.

> I think Joe Conway is planning to tackle that underlying misfeature
> for 7.5. Whenever it happens, it will result in a number of behavioral
> changes for arrays. I'm not eager to move the definition around in the
> meantime, especially not in dot-releases.

Agreed. This and a few other changes to bring us closer to SQL99/SQL2003
compliance (see this thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-06/msg01167.php
) will cause some reasonably significant behavioral changes.

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ruff 2004-01-15 18:26:04 7.3.5 initdb failure on Irix 6.5.18
Previous Message Dennis Bjorklund 2004-01-15 16:13:40 Re: NULL in arrays