From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] string_to_array with empty input |
Date: | 2009-04-01 16:02:18 |
Message-ID: | 6569.1238601738@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>>> string_to_array('',',')::INT[] => invalid input syntax for integer: ""
>>
>> Oof. That's a good point.
> +1. I find this argument much more compelling than anything else
> that's been offered up so far.
Yeah. It seems to me that if you consider only the case where the array
elements are text, there's a weak preference for considering '' to be a
single empty string; but as soon as you think about any other datatype,
there's a strong preference to consider it a zero-element list. So I
too have come around to favor the latter interpretation. Do we have
any remaining holdouts?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrick Desjardins | 2009-04-01 16:32:03 | Re: [GENERAL] ERROR: XX001: could not read block 2354 of relation… |
Previous Message | Emanuel Calvo Franco | 2009-04-01 15:57:42 | Re: [GENERAL] ERROR: XX001: could not read block 2354 of relation… |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-04-01 16:50:55 | Re: 8.4 open items list |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-01 15:22:30 | Re: Patch to speed up pg_dump |