Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I don't have a lot of use for arguments that go "we should remove any >> functionality that's not in the spec" ... ISTM that variable lower >> bounds are clearly useful for some applications, and even if they had >> bugs in earlier releases that's not an argument for removing them.
> Normally I don't either. But it's not just functionality that's not in the > spec. It's functionality that creates behaviour the spec specifies otherwise. AFAICS the only cases that give rise to arrays with lower bounds other than one are: * direct entry of a literal with explicit lower bound; * assignment to a subscript or slice below 1; * array_prepend (and the N/N+1-dimension case of array_cat). I don't think "it's not in the spec" is a reason for rejecting #1 or #2. But I agree that there is a reasonable case for modifying array_prepend and array_cat so that they won't generate non-spec lower bounds where none existed before. How about changing them so that the lower bound of the right-hand array is preserved, rather than decreased by one? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend