Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)

On 4 April 2013 15:11, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> My thought was that on-disk zero-D arrays should be converted into
>> empty 1-D arrays (with default lower bounds of course) when they are
>> read by array_recv.
>
> Huh? array_recv would not get applied to datums coming off of disk.

My mistake, sorry for the noise.

> In any case, the whole exercise is pointless if we don't change the
> visible behavior of array_dims et al. So I think the idea that this
> would be without visible consequence is silly. What's up for argument
> is just how much incompatibility is acceptable.

I don't know that anyone was suggesting there would be no visible
consequences of any kind. I was hoping that we could at least
represent on-disk zero-D arrays as though they were 1-D.

If that's not going to fly, and we are stuck with continuing to allow
zero-D as a valid representation, then perhaps your '[]=' syntax would
be the way to proceed. It would not be terribly difficult to rework
the patch along those lines, although I have to admit "allow empty
arrays with dimensions" is not nearly so satisfying a title as
"exorcise zero-dimensional arrays".

Cheers,
BJ