On 17 July 2010 04:52, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/7/16 Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com>: >> Also, if we're going to make the function non-strict, we need to >> consider how to respond when the user specifies NULL for the other >> arguments. If the field separator is NULL, bearing in mind that NULL >> can't match any string, I would expect that to_array would return the >> undivided string as a single array element, and that to_string would >> throw an error: >> > > ok, it has a sense. > > other question is empty string as separator - but I think, it can has > same behave like string_to_array and array_to_string functions. >
Agreed. Those behaviours seem sensible. >> If the first argument is NULL for either function, I think it would be >> reasonable to return NULL. But I could be convinced that we should >> throw an error in that case too. >> > > I agree - I prefer a NULL > > Thank You very much No worries; I will await a revised patch from you which updates these behaviours -- please incorporate the doc/comment changes I posted earlier -- I will then do a further review before handing off to a committer. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
