Re: Some questions about the array.
| От | Alexander Korotkov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Some questions about the array. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAPpHfdv_zvPEs-6FRXPgenGYA6mWKferbRgg6hKKZYytjdX4NQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Some questions about the array. (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Some questions about the array.
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-11-09 14:44 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev <u.zhuravlev@postgrespro.ru>:On Monday 09 November 2015 13:50:20 Pavel Stehule wrote:
> New symbols increase a complexity of our code and our documentation.
>
> If some functionality can be implemented via functions without performance
> impacts, we should not to create new operators or syntax - mainly for
> corner use cases.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
Ok we can use {:} instead [:] for zero array access.
The function is the solution half.It isn't solution. The any syntax/behave change have to have stronger motivation. We had so talk about it 20 years ago :(
Assuming array[~n] has a current meaning, could we give a try to new syntax which doesn't have current meaning? Not yet sure what exactly it could be...
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: