On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:57:27AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >> But, couldn't that be solved by deprecating that function and
> >> providing a more sensible alternatively named version?
> >
> > And what would you name that function? array_dims2? I can't think of
> > a name that makes the difference in behaviour apparent. Can you
> > imagine the documentation for that?
>
> I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's hard to argue that
> deprecating and documenting a few functions is a heavier burden on
> your users than having to sift through older arcane code before
> upgrading to the latest version of the database. We're not the only
> ones stuck with lousy old functions (C finally ditched gets() in the
> 2011 standard). I also happen to think the current array_api function
> names are not particularly great (especially array_upper/array_lower)
> so I won't shed too many tears.
Sorry to be late on this, but are you saying people have code that is
testing:
select array_dims('{}'::int[])
for a NULL return, and they would need to change that to test for zero?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
