| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |
| Date: | 2010-08-10 18:46:52 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikfjHwFfTMd+cr4+H4ZHxa4SCELV5qS-148bBpu@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 August 2010 19:41, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Looking through Pavel's string_to_array patch, I notice that the new
> version of string_to_array returns an empty (zero-element) array when
> the input string is of zero length, whereas the traditional version
> returned NULL instead. The patch fails to emulate the old behavior
> exactly, but rather than fix it, I wonder if we shouldn't make the two
> versions behave the same. (If we don't have them doing the same thing,
> we're going to have to document the difference...) The NULL result
> seems a bit peculiar to me, and the empty-array result saner. Given
> the general inconsistency surrounding empty arrays elsewhere, I think
> this wouldn't be a very problematic change for most users.
>
> Thoughts?
>
I, personally, would expect an empty array output given an empty
input, and a null output for a null input.
--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-08-10 18:48:53 | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-08-10 18:43:42 | Re: Session timeout on commitfest.postgresql.org |