Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)
От | Brendan Jurd |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CADxJZo12kNptU5DQsUhn=pLZpuHpCwxR+C95jFiRP54Bh1EEcg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re:
Should array_length() Return NULL)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 March 2013 22:57, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > They hate it twice as much when the change is essentially cosmetic. > There's no functional problems with arrays as they exist today that > this change would solve. > We can't sensibly test for whether an array is empty. I'd call that a functional problem. The NULL return from array_{length,lower,upper,ndims} is those functions' way of saying their arguments failed a sanity check. So we cannot distinguish in a disciplined way between a valid, empty array, and bad arguments. If the zero-D implementation had been more polished and say, array_ndims returned zero, we had provided an array_empty function, or the existing functions threw errors for silly arguments instead of returning NULL, then I'd be more inclined to see your point. But as it stands, the zero-D implementation has always been half-baked and slightly broken, we just got used to working around it. Cheers, BJ
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: