| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |