From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane), pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: contrib/intarray vs empty arrays |
Date: | 2009-04-05 04:29:53 |
Message-ID: | 87fxgnvi2m.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
[empty arrays and containment ops]
Tom> From what I understand of GIN's internal workings, this is
Tom> unfixable because there is nothing to make an index entry on
Tom> when looking at an empty array. Unless you know of a trick to
Tom> get around that, we've got a problem here.
Umm. In theory, could the extract function return some distinct
value when applied to an empty array, and the extract_query function
include the same value when extracting a query?
It's not very clean, since it means that the element type for an
index of sometype[] is no longer sometype, but it would allow the
semantics to be kept consistent.
[whether it is worth the pain of doing this is a separate question]
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | abdelhak benmohamed | 2009-04-05 07:26:03 | about hacking postgresql |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-05 03:14:04 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT |