From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 17:09:38 |
Message-ID: | 7668.1238605778@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> Well, I'd just point out that the return value of string_to_array() is
> text[].
True...
> Thus, this is not a problem with string_to_array(), but a
> casting problem from text[] to int[].
Nonsense. The question is whether string_to_array is meant to be useful
for lists of anything except text. I agree you could argue that it
isn't. But even in the domain of text it's not all that cut-and-dried
whether string_to_array should return array[] or array[''] for empty
input. So ISTM we're giving up less than we gain by choosing the former.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-04-01 17:20:28 | Re: [HACKERS] string_to_array with empty input |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-04-01 17:06:40 | Re: [GENERAL] Re: [GENERAL] ERROR: XX001: could not read block 2354 of relation… |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2009-04-01 17:14:23 | Re: More message encoding woes |
Previous Message | justin | 2009-04-01 17:05:04 | Re: [HACKERS] string_to_array with empty input |