On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> ISTM that if we'd had Yury's code in there from the beginning, what we >>> would define this as meaning is "a[3:4][:5]", ie the implied range runs >>> from whatever the array lower bound is up to the specified subscript. > >> Gosh, our arrays are strange. I would have expected a[3:4][5] to mean >> a[3:4][5:5]. > > Yeah, probably, now that you mention it ... but that seems like too much > of a compatibility break. Or does anyone want to argue for just doing > that and never mind the compatibility issues? This is a pretty weird > corner case already; there can't be very many people relying on it.
To be honest, I'd be inclined not to change the semantics at all. But that's just me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
