From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
Date: | 2013-04-01 10:57:19 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoaj9YoGHv=8DT=JqFE3O0DZYzGJfsTYGeRaXdyu+e548g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 27 March 2013 06:47, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> We can't sensibly test for whether an array is empty. I'd call that a
>>> functional problem.
>>
>> Sure you can. Equality comparisons work just fine.
>>
>> rhaas=# select '{}'::int4[] = '{}'::int4[];
>
> The good news is, if anybody out there is using that idiom to test for
> emptiness, they will not be disrupted by the change.
According to the discussion downthread, apparently they will, because
you're introducing an infinitude of empty arrays, not all of which
compare equal to '{}'::int4.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-04-01 11:43:22 | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-04-01 09:44:35 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |