Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We may need another extension to the array literal syntax in > > order to deal with this. I'll report back after I've had some time to > > study it. > > There already is support in array_in for specification of the array > dimensions (though it may be suffering bit rot for lack of use/testing). > I think the main thing needed is some thought about when array_out > should print dimensions; we don't want it doing so all the time, for > both clutter and backwards compatibility reasons. Maybe "whenever any > lower bound is not 1" would do; or maybe we want to invent a GUC switch > to control its behavior.
Is this a TODO? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
