OK, what is the TODO item text?
---
Joe Conway wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is this a TODO item?
Probably. I posted some questions regarding whether or not to break
backward compatiblity, and received no replies.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is this a TODO item?
Probably. I posted some questions regarding whether or not to break
backward compatiblity, and received no replies. In the meanwhile, I've
been doing a major system integration in Korea for the last 2 weeks, and
won't get back to home, or to
Is this a TODO item?
---
Markus Bertheau ? wrote:
? ???, 06/06/2005 ? 08:58 -0700, Joe Conway ?:
Joe Conway wrote:
Actually, consistent with my last post, I think array_upper() on a
zero-element array should
, 24/05/2005 00:06 -0400, Tom Lane :
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Markus Bertheau wrote:
why does SELECT ARRAY(SELECT 1 WHERE FALSE) return NULL instead of
ARRAY[] resp. '{}'?
Why would you expect an empty array instead of a NULL?
I think he's got a good point, actually.
, 06/06/2005 10:44 -0400, Tom Lane :
Markus Bertheau =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=98=AD?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By analogy, array_upper('{}'::TEXT[], 1) should return 0 instead of
NULL.
No, that doesn't follow ... we've traditionally considered '{}' to
denote a zero-dimensional array.
But
Markus Bertheau =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=98=AD?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By analogy, array_upper('{}'::TEXT[], 1) should return 0 instead of
NULL.
No, that doesn't follow ... we've traditionally considered '{}' to
denote a zero-dimensional array. A 1-D array of no elements is
'[1:0]={}', just as Joe
Tom Lane wrote:
Markus Bertheau =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=98=AD?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By analogy, array_upper('{}'::TEXT[], 1) should return 0 instead of
NULL.
No, that doesn't follow ... we've traditionally considered '{}' to
denote a zero-dimensional array. A 1-D array of no elements is
Markus Bertheau wrote:
, 06/06/2005 10:44 -0400, Tom Lane :
Markus Bertheau =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=98=AD?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By analogy, array_upper('{}'::TEXT[], 1) should return 0 instead of
NULL.
No, that doesn't follow ... we've traditionally considered '{}' to
denote a
Joe Conway wrote:
Actually, consistent with my last post, I think array_upper() on a
zero-element array should return NULL. A zero-element array has a
defined lower bound, but its upper bound is not zero -- it is really
undefined.
Just to clarify my response, this is what I propose:
, 06/06/2005 08:58 -0700, Joe Conway :
Joe Conway wrote:
Actually, consistent with my last post, I think array_upper() on a
zero-element array should return NULL. A zero-element array has a
defined lower bound, but its upper bound is not zero -- it is really
undefined.
Just to
Markus Bertheau wrote:
Hmm, this gets really complicated and inconsistent. Complicated means
unusable. What about modifying the dimension syntax such that the second
number means number of elements instead of upper bound? That particular
problem would go away then, and
Dnia 24-05-2005, wto o godzinie 00:06 -0400, Tom Lane napisa(a):
Joe Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Markus Bertheau wrote:
why does SELECT ARRAY(SELECT 1 WHERE FALSE) return NULL instead of
ARRAY[] resp. '{}'?
Why would you expect an empty array instead of a NULL?
I think he's got
12 matches
Mail list logo
