| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch: to_string, to_array functions |
| Date: | 2010-07-12 07:31:27 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimTmR75T_uVihRYNRtofyKdLDjIV1OpPGXEKS09@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/7/12 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> I prefere a new names - because there are a new behave - with little
> bit better default handling of NULL values. string_to_array and
> array_to_string just ignore NULL values - what isn't correct behave.
> Later we can mark these functions as deprecated and remove it. If I
> use current function, then we have to continue in current behave.
I prefer existing names because your new default behavior can be done
with suitable nullstr values. IMHO, new names will be acceptable only if
they are listed in the SQL-standard or many other databases use the
names. Two similar versions of functions must confuse users.
Also, are there any consensus about "existing functions are not correct" ?
Since string_agg() and your new concat() functions ignores NULLs,
I think it is not so bad for array_to_string() to ignore NULLs.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-07-12 07:34:40 | Re: patch: to_string, to_array functions |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-07-12 07:30:25 | Re: patch: preload dictionary new version |