Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joe Conway wrote:
Any thoughts on how this should be handled for an empty 1D array?
No one responed to this email, so I will try. Is this the one
dimmentional array you were talking about?
test=> select array_dims('{}'::integer[]);
array_dims
------------
(1 row)
In this case, what you get is actually a dimensionless array. Literally,
you get this:
if (nitems == 0)
{
/* Return empty array */
retval = (ArrayType *) palloc0(sizeof(ArrayType));
retval->size = sizeof(ArrayType);
retval->elemtype = element_type;
PG_RETURN_ARRAYTYPE_P(retval);
}
I.e. the array structure is allocated, the size is set (which is
required since arrays are varlena), and the element type is initialized.
There is no initialization of ndim, ARR_DIMS(), or ARR_LBOUND().
In this case, since there are no dimensions, array_dims() probably does
the right thing by returning NULL.
Why is [1:0] wrong to return?
I'm not sure it is wrong -- it just seems a bit strange. The difference
is that in order to return an empty *one-dimensional* array, ndim,
ARR_DIMS(), and ARR_LBOUND() are all appropriately set (by the patched
code). Basically, ndim == 1, ARR_DIMS() is a single element int array (C
array that is) indicating 0 elements for dimension 1, and ARR_LBOUND()
is a single element int array indicating a lower bound of 1. This leads
to the array_dims() return value of [1:0]. The value 1 is unquestionably
correct for the lower bound index, but what should be reported for the
upper bound? We can't return [1:1], because that would indicate that we
have one element.
Joe
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
