From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null? |
Date: | 2004-04-02 17:00:44 |
Message-ID: | 406D9C3C.6050203@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>>I'm leaning towards suggesting that postgres should follow sql-99 here and
>>normalize all array indexes to have a lower bound of 1.
>
> That would break even more things, no?
>
> On the other hand, it'd get rid of the problem that we presently face
> with dump/restore of arrays that don't have lower bound 1. Because
> pg_dump doesn't do anything to mark such values, they'll end up with
> lower bound 1 after reload anyway. The fact that we haven't heard lots
> of squawks about that suggests to me that not many people are using such
> arrays at present ...
The more I think about it, the more I like it. Does everyone else agree
that a lower bound of 1 complies with the spec?
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Seymour | 2004-04-02 17:02:22 | Re: Problems Vacuum'ing |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-04-02 16:59:16 | Re: Inconsistent behavior on Array & Is Null? |