| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostGreSql hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: array_length(anyarray) |
| Date: | 2014-01-19 13:24:18 |
| Message-ID: | 52DBD202.30609@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/19/14, 2:12 PM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> That might seem overly pedantic, but it's quite annoying when API
> documentation doesn't fully specify the behaviour, and you're forced
> to use trial-and-error to find out how the functions behave.
For what it's worth, I was thinking the same thing when I was looking at
that table. Nearly *all* of them are completely inadequate at
explaining the finer details, and the user has to experiment to figure
out what actually happens. I seem to recall other similar examples in
our documentation for functions.
Personally I would like to see this fixed for all functions, not just
array functions. But I think that should be a separate patch.
Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2014-01-19 14:31:06 | Re: Changeset Extraction v7.0 (was logical changeset generation) |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2014-01-19 13:12:10 | Re: array_length(anyarray) |