Hello
2013/4/2 Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> > On 2 April 2013 11:34, David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com> wrote: > > On Apr 1, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I think the only people for whom nothing will break are the people who > >> aren't using arrays in the first place. Anyone who is is likely to > >> have dependencies on the way array_lower/upper work today. > > > > Well, what if we add new functions that return 0 for empty arrays, but > leave the existing ones alone? Perhaps call them array_size(), > array_first_index(), and array_last_index(). Then nothing has to break, and > we can decide independently if we want to deprecate the older functions in > a future release. Or not. > > I think having an 'array_size' and an 'array_length' that behave > differently would be legitimately confusing, and I can't think of any > alternative function name that would concisely explain the difference > in behaviour -- 'array_length_without_the_stupid_nulls' is just too > long. > yes, we should to do complete redesign or do nothing. Regards Pavel > > Cheers, > BJ > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
