2010/5/4 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >>> quietly removing NULL is maybe good for compatibility but is wrong for >>> functionality. > >> I agree. I wasn't aware of this little misfeature. > >> Default display for NULL should be a zero-length string. > > That's just as broken as Pavel's suggestion. Unless you have something > that is guaranteed distingishable from the output of any non-null value, > you really can't make a significant improvement here. >
I wouldn't modify current two params string_to_array and array_to_string function. So there are not any default string (maybe empty string) for NULL. My proposal is new three params functions with >>>explicit<<< "null string" definition. This cannot break compatibility and enhance functionality - It is just short cut for code from my proposal - in C this functionality can by implemented much faster. Regards Pavel > 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
