Re: array_length(anyarray)

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostGreSql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: array_length(anyarray)
Date: 2013-12-18 21:38:38
Message-ID: 52B215DE.40409@joh.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-12-18 22:32, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> You're not really free to assume it - you'll need an exception handler
> for the other-than-1 case, or your code might blow up.
>
> This seems to be codifying a bad pattern, which should be using
> array_lower() and array_upper() instead.

That's the entire point -- I *want* my code to blow up. If someone
passes a multi-dimensional array to a function that assumes its input is
one-dimensional and its indexes start from 1, I want it to be obvious
that the caller did something wrong. Now I either copy-paste lines and
lines of codes to always test for the weird cases or my code breaks in
subtle ways.

This is no different from an Assert() somewhere -- if the caller breaks
the documented interface, it's his problem, not mine. And I don't want
to waste my time coding around the fact that this simple thing is so
hard to do in PG.

Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2013-12-18 21:54:20 Re: Extension Templates S03E11
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-12-18 21:32:46 Re: array_length(anyarray)