Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

I've committed this with a number of revisions, mostly but not entirely cosmetic. Thanks Tom! I feel I still have a lot to learn Postgres to choose the right solution. Your comments are very valuable. -- Yury Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

Uriy Zhuravlev writes: > On понедельник, 21 декабря 2015 г. 20:28:43 MSK, Tom Lane > wrote: >> With is_slice false, the only valid >> case is lidx==NULL, uidx!=NULL, as before for non-slice notation. > But now it becomes valid syntax: > select

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

I think you are confused about the difference between a NULL constant (which would give rise to an A_Const syntax tree node) and a NULL syntax tree pointer (which cannot arise from any actual syntactical construct, and would only be present if the grammar put it there due to lack of any

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

Yury Zhuravlev writes: > New patch version in attachment. I've committed this with a number of revisions, mostly but not entirely cosmetic. Worthy of note: * I did not like the way you were inserting the replacement subscript values: +

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

New patch version in attachment. Thanks. -- Yury Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/doc/src/sgml/array.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/array.sgml index 4385a09..305cabb 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/array.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/array.sgml @@

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On понедельник, 21 декабря 2015 г. 20:28:43 MSK, Tom Lane wrote: With is_slice false, the only valid case is lidx==NULL, uidx!=NULL, as before for non-slice notation. But now it becomes valid syntax: select ('{1,2,3,4}'::int[])[NULL:NULL]; I do not think it's logical. Especially if in [:]

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

Yury Zhuravlev writes: > New patch version in attachment. It's still awfully short on comments, but I'll see what I can do with it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Uriy Zhuravlev writes: >>> I'm dubious that the parsetree representation is well-chosen. >>> Probably a single is_slice flag would have been better. > >> What do you mean? This flag is for what?

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

In the continuation of thread: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19144.1450457...@sss.pgh.pa.us I'm dubious that the parsetree representation is well-chosen. Probably a single is_slice flag would have been better. What do you mean? This flag is for what? You are about the A_Indices

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

Uriy Zhuravlev writes: >> I'm dubious that the parsetree representation is well-chosen. >> Probably a single is_slice flag would have been better. > What do you mean? This flag is for what? You are about the A_Indices > node(lidx_default/uidx_default)? Yes. Those

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev > wrote: >> On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:38:21 you wrote: >>> it (zero >>> based indexing support) doesn't meet the standard of necessity for

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Friday 04 December 2015 16:52:48 Teodor Sigaev wrote: > Seems, omitting boundaries in insert/update isn't a good idea. I suggest to > allow omitting only in select subscripting. It was my last attempt to do so. So now I agree, the most simple is now disabled for insert and update. New patch

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

Some inconsistency (if we believe that omitted lower bound is equal to 1): regression=# insert into arrtest_s values ('[-1:9]={3,1,4,1,5,9,5,6,7,8,9}'::int[], null); INSERT 0 1 regression=# UPDATE arrtest_s SET a[:2] = '{23, 24, 25}'; ERROR: source array too small regression=# UPDATE arrtest_s

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:38:21 you wrote: >> it (zero >> based indexing support) doesn't meet the standard of necessity for >> adding to the core API and as stated it's much to magical. > > We do not touch

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 15:30:47 Teodor Sigaev wrote: > As I understand, update should fail with any array, so, first update should > fail too. Am I right? You right. Done. New patch in attach. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Friday 27 November 2015 17:23:35 Teodor Sigaev wrote: 1 Documentation isn't very informative Added example with different results. Perfect 2 Seems, error messages are too inconsistent. If you forbid omitting bound in assigment then if all cases error message should be the same or close.

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > On Monday 30 November 2015 08:58:49 you wrote: >> +1 IMO this line of thinking is a dead end. Better handled via >> functions, not syntax > > Maybe then add array_pyslice(start, end) when start is 0 and with

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 15:43:47 you wrote: > On Tuesday 01 December 2015 15:30:47 Teodor Sigaev wrote: > > As I understand, update should fail with any array, so, first update > > should > > fail too. Am I right? > > You right. Done. New patch in attach. Found error when omitted lower

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:38:21 you wrote: > it (zero > based indexing support) doesn't meet the standard of necessity for > adding to the core API and as stated it's much to magical. We do not touch the arrays, we simply create a function to access them with a comfortable behavior.

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Monday 30 November 2015 08:58:49 you wrote: > +1 IMO this line of thinking is a dead end. Better handled via > functions, not syntax Maybe then add array_pyslice(start, end) when start is 0 and with negative indexes? Only for 1D array. What do you think? -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> >> On Friday 06 November 2015 12:55:44 you wrote: >>> >>> Omitted bounds are common in other languages and would be handy. I >>> don't think they'd cause any issues with multi-dimensional arrays or

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

The new version of the patch. On Friday 27 November 2015 17:23:35 Teodor Sigaev wrote: > 1 > Documentation isn't very informative Added example with different results. > 2 > Seems, error messages are too inconsistent. If you forbid omitting bound in > assigment then if all cases error message

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

Some comments about patch 1 Documentation isn't very informative Outputs of SELECT schedule[:][:] FROM sal_emp WHERE name = 'Bill' and SELECT schedule[:2][1:] FROM sal_emp WHERE name = 'Bill'; are the same. Suppose, it's better to have differs ones. 2 # create table xxx (a int[]); # update xxx

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: On Friday 06 November 2015 12:55:44 you wrote: Omitted bounds are common in other languages and would be handy. I don't think they'd cause any issues with multi-dimensional arrays or variable start-pos arrays. And yet, what about my patch? My vote: let us do it,

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Friday 06 November 2015 12:55:44 you wrote: > Omitted bounds are common in other languages and would be handy. I > don't think they'd cause any issues with multi-dimensional arrays or > variable start-pos arrays. And yet, what about my patch? Discussions about ~ and{:} it seems optional.

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2015-11-09 17:55 GMT+01:00 Alexander Korotkov : > >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Pavel Stehule >> wrote: >> >>> 2015-11-09 14:44 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

2015-11-11 12:25 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : > On Friday 06 November 2015 12:55:44 you wrote: > > Omitted bounds are common in other languages and would be handy. I > > don't think they'd cause any issues with multi-dimensional arrays or > > variable start-pos arrays.

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Wednesday 11 November 2015 17:29:31 you wrote: > In this case the syntax is major issue. Any language should not to have any > possible feature on the world. I am about omitted boundaries. It almost does not change the syntax and with nothing conflicts. Thanks. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

2015-11-09 14:44 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : > On Monday 09 November 2015 13:50:20 Pavel Stehule wrote: > > New symbols increase a complexity of our code and our documentation. > > > > If some functionality can be implemented via functions without > performance > >

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

2015-11-09 13:50 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule : > > > 2015-11-09 13:32 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : > >> On Monday 09 November 2015 13:29:30 you wrote: >> > It is ugly, but you can wrap it to function - so still I don't see any >> > reason, why it is

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

2015-11-09 13:07 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : > On Monday 09 November 2015 12:48:54 you wrote: > > I am sorry - it is looking pretty obscure. Really need this feature? > > IMHO yes. > Now for write: array[~2:~-2] you need like: > array[array_lower(array, 1)+3:

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On 11/9/15, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > On Monday 09 November 2015 12:48:54 you wrote: >> I am sorry - it is looking pretty obscure. Really need this feature? > > IMHO yes. > Now for write: array[~2:~-2] you need like: > array[array_lower(array, 1)+3: array_upper(array,

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

2015-11-09 13:32 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : > On Monday 09 November 2015 13:29:30 you wrote: > > It is ugly, but you can wrap it to function - so still I don't see any > > reason, why it is necessary > For example, I'm writing a lot of queries by hands... > This

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Monday 09 November 2015 13:29:30 you wrote: > It is ugly, but you can wrap it to function - so still I don't see any > reason, why it is necessary For example, I'm writing a lot of queries by hands... This functionality is available in many languages and it's just convenient. Of course it is

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

2015-11-09 13:38 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : > On Monday 09 November 2015 04:33:28 you wrote: > > You can write it as a separate function instead of changing current > syntax. > I do not think, because we have a multi-dimensional arrays. > And why we have [:] syntax

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Monday 09 November 2015 13:50:20 Pavel Stehule wrote: > New symbols increase a complexity of our code and our documentation. > > If some functionality can be implemented via functions without performance > impacts, we should not to create new operators or syntax - mainly for > corner use

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Monday 09 November 2015 04:33:28 you wrote: > You can write it as a separate function instead of changing current syntax. I do not think, because we have a multi-dimensional arrays. And why we have [:] syntax now? -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

2015-11-09 17:55 GMT+01:00 Alexander Korotkov : > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Pavel Stehule > wrote: > >> 2015-11-09 14:44 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : >> >>> On Monday 09 November 2015 13:50:20 Pavel Stehule

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2015-11-09 14:44 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : > >> On Monday 09 November 2015 13:50:20 Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > New symbols increase a complexity of our code and our documentation. >> > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Sunday 08 November 2015 16:49:20 you wrote: > I'm not necessarily objecting to that, but it's not impossible that it > could break something for some existing user. We can decide not to > care about that, though. We had an idea. You can use ~ to convert the index to the array which always

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

2015-11-09 12:36 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev : > On Sunday 08 November 2015 16:49:20 you wrote: > > I'm not necessarily objecting to that, but it's not impossible that it > > could break something for some existing user. We can decide not to > > care about that, though.

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Monday 09 November 2015 12:48:54 you wrote: > I am sorry - it is looking pretty obscure. Really need this feature? IMHO yes. Now for write: array[~2:~-2] you need like: array[array_lower(array, 1)+3: array_upper(array, 1)-2] Worse when long names. Besides the extra functions calls. Thanks.

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

>From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >[mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Stehule >Sent: Montag, 9. November 2015 12:49 >To: YUriy Zhuravlev >Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers >Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array. > > > >20

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> Since the start-pos is recorded in the array, I wonder if it's worth >> supporting negative indexing for arrays with the default 1-indexed >> element numbering, and just ERRORing for others. Does anyone really >> use

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On 11/5/15 10:55 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: Omitted bounds are common in other languages and would be handy. I don't think they'd cause any issues with multi-dimensional arrays or variable start-pos arrays. +1 I'd love negative indexes, but the variable-array-start (mis)feature means we can't

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Thursday 05 November 2015 22:33:37 you wrote: > Would something like array[1:~1] as a syntax be acceptable to denote > backward counting? Very interesting idea! I could implement it. I just need to check for side effects. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Thursday 05 November 2015 23:45:53 you wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev > > wrote: > > Hello hackers. > > There are comments to my patch? Maybe I should create a separate thread? > > Thanks. > > You should add this on

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > Hello hackers. > There are comments to my patch? Maybe I should create a separate thread? > Thanks. You should add this on commitfest.postgresql.org. I think the first question that needs to be answered is "do

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On 6 November 2015 at 12:45, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev > wrote: >> Hello hackers. >> There are comments to my patch? Maybe I should create a separate thread? >> Thanks. > > You should add this on

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Thursday, November 5, 2015, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 6 November 2015 at 12:45, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev > > > wrote: > >> Hello hackers. > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

Hello hackers. There are comments to my patch? Maybe I should create a separate thread? Thanks. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

Hello again. I attached simple patch for omitted boundaries in the slice. This will simplify the writing of SQL. Instead: select arr[2:array_upper(arr, 1)]; you can write: select arr[2:]; simple and elegant. Omitted boundaries is prohibited in UPDATE. Thanks. -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:02 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > We were some of the issues associated with the behavior of arrays. > 1. We would like to implement arrays negative indices (from the end) like in > Python or Ruby: arr[-2] or arr[1: -1] > but as an array can be

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 10/09/2015 08:02 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > >> We were some of the issues associated with the behavior of arrays. >> 1. We would like to implement arrays negative indices (from the end) like >> in >> Python or

Re: [HACKERS] Some questions about the array.

On 10/09/2015 08:02 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: We were some of the issues associated with the behavior of arrays. 1. We would like to implement arrays negative indices (from the end) like in Python or Ruby: arr[-2] or arr[1: -1] but as an array can be indexed in the negative area so it