Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 28 March 2013 09:39, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe. But even in 1-D, it's still jumping from having one empty array
>> to infinitely many starting at different indexes, e.g., '{}'::int[] !=
>> '[4:3]={}'::int[]. There may be a certain logic to that, but I'm not
>> convinced about its usefulness.
> We already have the ability to define lower bounds other than 1 on
> arrays, and it would be inconsistent to allow that for arrays with
> elements, but not for arrays without.
Yeah, if '[1:1]={0}'::int[] is distinct from '[2:2]={0}'::int[],
it's a bit hard to argue that '[1:0]={}'::int[] must not be
distinct from '[2:1]={}'::int[]. If we were doing this from scratch
we might drop the whole notion of nondefault lower bounds, but that
ship sailed ages ago.
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
