On Sep 29, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
[ expanding this thread, as it now needs wider discussion ]
"Paul B. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Actually, I was not filling all of the arrays in sequential order. I
added code to initialize them in order and the function seems to be
working now. Is that a known problem?
Well, it's a documented behavior: section 8.10.4 saith
A stored array value can be enlarged by assigning to an element
adjacent to those already present, or by assigning to a slice
that is adjacent to or overlaps the data already present.
Up to 8.2 we didn't have a lot of choice about this, because
without any
ability to have nulls embedded in arrays, there wasn't any sane
thing to
do with the intermediate positions if you assigned to an element not
adjacent to the existing range. As of 8.2 we could allow
assignment to
arbitrary positions by filling the intermediate positions with nulls.
The code hasn't actually been changed to allow that, but it's
something
we could consider doing now.
Comments?
At first blush, this strikes me as a bit too magical/implicit. Are
there other languages where sequences behave similarly? The best
analogy that comes to mind is sparse files, but in that case there is
an implicit contract that the intervening empty regions do not
actually occupy physical space, doesn't sound like that's true here.
I think the result of this change would be more difficult debugging
of off-by-one errors and their ilk, rather than actually being a real
benefit.
OTOH, perhaps there is a real use-case I am missing here. I don't see
the rest of this thread on GENERAL and I couldn't find it searching
the archives, where did it come from?
-Casey
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
