From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |
Date: | 2010-08-11 16:36:52 |
Message-ID: | 7639.1281544612@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So maybe we need to revisit the issue. Pavel was claiming that
>> switching to a zero-element array result was a no-brainer, but evidently
>> it isn't so. Is anybody still excited about the alternatives?
> % perl -E 'say q{"}, join(",", ""), q{"}'
> ""
> % ruby -e 'puts %q{"} + [""].join(",") + %q{"}'
> ""
> % python -c 'print "\"" + ",".join([""]) + "\""'
> ""
> I believe those are all "", rather than '"' + undef + '"'.
If you believe my previous opinion that the design center for these
functions is arrays of numbers, then a zero-entry text[] array is what
you want, because you can successfully cast it to a zero-entry array of
integers or floats or whatever. Returning a single empty string will
make those cases fail. So at the moment I'm on the side of the fence
that says zero-entry array is the best answer.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-11 16:38:08 | Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-11 16:28:44 | Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch |