Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null?

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null?
Date: 2004-04-02 16:59:16
Message-ID: 406D9BE4.9050906@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark wrote:
> I'm leaning towards suggesting that postgres should follow sql-99 here and
> normalize all array indexes to have a lower bound of 1. Then array_lower and
> array_upper become entirely unnecessary. Instead we just have array_length
> which is exactly equivalent to my idea of array_upper.
>

Now we finally have something to agree on ;-)

I do think this is the way to go, but it is a significant hit to
backward compatibility. Same is true for supporting NULL elements of
arrays -- maybe we should bite the bullet and make both changes at the
same time?

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2004-04-02 17:00:44 Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null?
Previous Message Joe Conway 2004-04-02 16:53:38 Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null?