2008/11/18 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sam Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I've used this syntax before and got a surprising message back. I'd >> expect to be able to do the following: >> >> and get the following back {"(a,1)","(b,2)"}. So I think I'm with >> David. > > I concur --- if we support something like this, the behavior should be > that you get an array of record. Pavel's proposal for a 2-D array seems > unworkably restrictive. And I certainly don't want to end up in a > situation where we return either a 2-D array or array of record > depending on whether the parser thinks the column data types match ...
there are clean rules. you do array from input - when input is 1D array, then result is 2D array, when input is record, then result is 1D array of record. Where should be problem? I see Sam proposal as only one special case of my proposal. Pavel I am sorry, but you know - record type is very unfriendly to plpgsql. > > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers