On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> Well, it's a compatibility function... > >> compatible with what? > > It's required by the SQL standard. > >> The other thing that frankly bothers me is that we appear to have >> acquired this function by a curious process which involved no proposal >> or discussion that I have discovered. If there had been proper and >> adequate discussion before the item was committed I wouldn't be making a >> fuss now, whether or not I agreed with the result. > > I think Peter put it in under the assumption that meeting spec-required > syntax would always pass muster. It is however fair to question whether > he made the right extrapolation of the spec's definition to cases that > are not in the spec. > > Personally I am in favor of changing it to give the total number of > array elements, on the grounds that (1) that's as defensible a reading > of the spec as the other and (2) it would add actual new functionality > rather than being only a relabeling of array_length. > > I will leave that item on the Open Items list. I take it no one's > excited about the others?
I'm excited about some of them, but not to the point of not wanting to ship beta. So +1 for removing them as per your suggestions. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers