Re: Some array semantics issues

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: Some array semantics issues
Date: 2005-11-18 00:03:37
Message-ID: 437D1A59.302@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICS the only cases that give rise to arrays with lower bounds other
> than one are:
> * direct entry of a literal with explicit lower bound;
> * assignment to a subscript or slice below 1;
> * array_prepend (and the N/N+1-dimension case of array_cat).
>
> I don't think "it's not in the spec" is a reason for rejecting #1 or #2.
> But I agree that there is a reasonable case for modifying array_prepend
> and array_cat so that they won't generate non-spec lower bounds where
> none existed before.
>
> How about changing them so that the lower bound of the right-hand array
> is preserved, rather than decreased by one?
>

That seems reasonable. I'll do it if you'd like...

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-11-18 00:08:03 Re: Improving count(*)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-11-17 23:51:57 Re: Optional postgres database not so optional in 8.1