Greg Stark wrote:
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First, the spec only allows arrays to have a lower bound of 1. That
requirement simplifies a whole lot of things. I don't think that many
people actually depend on other than 1 as a lower bound (or at least if
they do, they weren't dumping and reloading those databases prior to
8.0) -- maybe given other possibly non-backward compatible changes for
NULLs, we should also change this?
I don't have a lot of use for arguments that go "we should remove any
functionality that's not in the spec" ... ISTM that variable lower
bounds are clearly useful for some applications, and even if they had
bugs in earlier releases that's not an argument for removing them.
Normally I don't either. But it's not just functionality that's not in the
spec. It's functionality that creates behaviour the spec specifies otherwise.
This is an important point. SQL2003 doesn't leave this as undefined:
4.10.2 Arrays
An array is a collection A in which each element is associated with
exactly one ordinal position in A. If n is the cardinality of A, then
the ordinal position p of an element is an integer in the range 1 (one)
<= p <= n. If EDT is the element type of A, then A can thus be
considered as a function of the integers in the range 1 (one) to n into EDT.
Joe
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
