| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2013-03-28 09:34:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAEZATCU5Lw+rsJbhTz4T7imLF8uu9Lg2MkN5dtAN9EW_S71H4A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28 March 2013 03:01, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> [snip]
> ranges *are not arrays*.
OK, fair enough. I guess it's the mathematician in me seeing patterns
in things that behave similarly, but which are admittedly different.
Is the patch also going to allow empty arrays in higher dimensions
where not just the last dimension is empty? It seems as though, if
it's allowing 1-by-0 arrays like '{{}}' and '[4:4][8:7]={{}}', it
should also allow 0-by-0 arrays like '[4:3][8:7]={}', and 0-by-3
arrays like '[4:3][11:13]={}'.
That last example seems like the more useful kind of thing to allow,
since you might one day be able to append a non-empty 1-D array onto
it. As it stands, the patch only allows empty 2-D arrays that are
empty in the final dimension, to which the only thing you could append
would be more empty 1-D arrays.
Regards,
Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-03-28 10:23:55 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow external recovery_config_directory |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-03-28 08:31:01 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow external recovery_config_directory |