On 2 April 2013 11:34, David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com> wrote: > On Apr 1, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think the only people for whom nothing will break are the people who >> aren't using arrays in the first place. Anyone who is is likely to >> have dependencies on the way array_lower/upper work today. > > Well, what if we add new functions that return 0 for empty arrays, but leave > the existing ones alone? Perhaps call them array_size(), array_first_index(), > and array_last_index(). Then nothing has to break, and we can decide > independently if we want to deprecate the older functions in a future > release. Or not.
I think having an 'array_size' and an 'array_length' that behave differently would be legitimately confusing, and I can't think of any alternative function name that would concisely explain the difference in behaviour -- 'array_length_without_the_stupid_nulls' is just too long. 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
