On 4 April 2013 15:11, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> writes: >> My thought was that on-disk zero-D arrays should be converted into >> empty 1-D arrays (with default lower bounds of course) when they are >> read by array_recv. > > Huh? array_recv would not get applied to datums coming off of disk.
My mistake, sorry for the noise. > In any case, the whole exercise is pointless if we don't change the > visible behavior of array_dims et al. So I think the idea that this > would be without visible consequence is silly. What's up for argument > is just how much incompatibility is acceptable. I don't know that anyone was suggesting there would be no visible consequences of any kind. I was hoping that we could at least represent on-disk zero-D arrays as though they were 1-D. If that's not going to fly, and we are stuck with continuing to allow zero-D as a valid representation, then perhaps your '[]=' syntax would be the way to proceed. It would not be terribly difficult to rework the patch along those lines, although I have to admit "allow empty arrays with dimensions" is not nearly so satisfying a title as "exorcise zero-dimensional arrays". 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
