On 12/22/2015 10:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
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.


I think a sane approach is better than a safe approach.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to