| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |
| Date: | 2010-08-11 17:49:52 |
| Message-ID: | EBBEAA25-D424-456E-9F9C-56FD87E92271@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 11, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, I think David's examples are talking about the behavior of join,
> but we're trying to decide what split should do.
Right, sorry about that.
> I think the main
> argument for making it return NULL is that you can then fairly easily
> use COALESCE() to get whatever you want. That's a bit more difficult
> if you use return any other value. But I think your argument that an
> empty array is better than a one-element array containing an empty
> string is very much correct, as between those options.
I prefer an empty array.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-11 17:53:12 | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-08-11 17:49:12 | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |