| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: So what's an "empty" array anyway? |
| Date: | 2008-10-21 21:16:29 |
| Message-ID: | 9858.1224623789@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Oct 21, 2008, at 13:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Same as before, I think: initialize it to '{}'. What's at stake here
>> is exactly what does that notation mean ...
> An empty, single-dimension array. But I got the impression from Simon
> that he thought it should be NULL.
Well, we can't do that because it would clearly break too much existing
code. '{}' has got to result in something you can successfully
concatenate more elements to. But either the current behavior with
a zero-dimension array, or a one-dimensional length-zero array would
presumably work okay.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-10-21 21:21:41 | Re: So what's an "empty" array anyway? |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-10-21 21:03:16 | Re: So what's an "empty" array anyway? |