From: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: intarray sort returns wrong result |
Date: | 2024-11-12 01:18:54 |
Message-ID: | CAEG8a3+Uf97p9rcaPhJGbVRZKqn1k8gOpiFkS_LcgL3-AJ1kfQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 9:13 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > While working on general array sort[1], I played with intarray
> > extension, found a bug (or at least inconsistency) when sorting
> > multidimensional int array:
>
> > create extension intarray;
> > select sort('{{1,2,3}, {2,3,4}}');
>
> > this returns {{1,2,2},{3,3,4}} instead of {{1,2,3},{2,3,4}}
>
> This is documented, isn't it?
>
> Many of these operations are only sensible for one-dimensional
> arrays. Although they will accept input arrays of more dimensions,
> the data is treated as though it were a linear array in storage
> order.
>
I did not notice this statement, my bad 😞
> I don't think anyone will thank us for changing intarray's behavior
> many years after the fact.
>
Agreed. Sorry for the noise.
> regards, tom lane
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2024-11-12 01:39:34 | Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions |
Previous Message | torikoshia | 2024-11-12 01:16:50 | Re: Add reject_limit option to file_fdw |