| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should array_length() Return NULL |
| Date: | 2013-03-16 18:21:11 |
| Message-ID: | 8DED33E2-D3D2-450C-BB49-7A31D449F223@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Perhaps not. I think for most uses, a 1-D zero-length array would be
> just as good. I guess what I'd want to know is whether we also need
> to support higher-dimensional zero-size arrays, and if so, what does
> the I/O syntax for those look like?
No.
> Another fly in the ointment is that if we do redefine '{}' as meaning
> something other than a zero-D array, how will we handle existing
> database entries that are zero-D arrays?
NULL. About as useful. ;-P
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-03-16 18:26:34 | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-16 18:19:39 | Re: Should array_length() Return NULL |