From: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2013-03-26 13:02:55 |
Message-ID: | CADxJZo12kNptU5DQsUhn=pLZpuHpCwxR+C95jFiRP54Bh1EEcg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 March 2013 22:57, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> They hate it twice as much when the change is essentially cosmetic.
> There's no functional problems with arrays as they exist today that
> this change would solve.
>
We can't sensibly test for whether an array is empty. I'd call that a
functional problem.
The NULL return from array_{length,lower,upper,ndims} is those
functions' way of saying their arguments failed a sanity check. So we
cannot distinguish in a disciplined way between a valid, empty array,
and bad arguments. If the zero-D implementation had been more
polished and say, array_ndims returned zero, we had provided an
array_empty function, or the existing functions threw errors for silly
arguments instead of returning NULL, then I'd be more inclined to see
your point. But as it stands, the zero-D implementation has always
been half-baked and slightly broken, we just got used to working
around it.
Cheers,
BJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-03-26 13:23:35 | Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-03-26 12:30:02 | Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay |