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
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 03:33:24PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Kinda -- what I'm saying is you just don't go around changing function
behaviors to make them 'better' unless the affected behavior was
specifically reserved as undefined. The fact is nobody knows how many
users will be
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 07:13:48PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Kinda -- what I'm saying is you just don't go around changing function
behaviors to make them 'better' unless the affected behavior was
specifically
Bruce,
Well, sometimes we underestimate the impact of changes, sometimes we
overestimate. The big problem is weighing the short-term problems of
change but not the long-term benefit of a change. This array problem
goes back to at least 2008:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 06:28:07PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
Well, sometimes we underestimate the impact of changes, sometimes we
overestimate. The big problem is weighing the short-term problems of
change but not the long-term benefit of a change. This array problem
goes back
On 14 June 2013 03:53, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote:
Similar things should have dissimilar names. I propose:
bikeshedding
Old |New
--+--
array_dims | array_desc
array_bounds?
array_ndims | array_depth
array_length | array_size
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 June 2013 04:26, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 06/12/2013 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm going
On Jun 12, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com wrote:
array_dims - Returns the dimensions of the array, unless it is empty
in which case NULL.
array_proper_dims - Returns the dimensions of the array.
array_ndims - Returns the number of dimension, unless it is empty in
which case
On 12 June 2013 04:50, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com wrote:
There have been attempts to add a cardinality function in the past, as
it is required by the SQL spec, but these attempts have stalled when
trying to decide
On 12 June 2013 18:22, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for having a function to return the total number of elements in an
array, because that's something that's currently missing from SQL.
However, I think that CARDINALITY() should be that function.
I'm not convinced that
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 June 2013 18:22, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for having a function to return the total number of elements in an
array, because that's something that's currently missing from SQL.
However, I think
Multidim arrays are why we can't have nice things.
Yeah, I think that was not our best moment. :-(
They were one of those hacks which looked really clever at the time, but
proved not to be so. Unfortunately, they *are* useful, and are being
used; I use MD arrays all the time to push data
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Actually, if you think about it, we've never had arrays in PostgreSQL
... we have always had matrixes. If you think about things that way,
most of the current functionality makes sense.
Arguably, the only thing wrong with multidim arrays is that they're
On 06/12/2013 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Arguably, the only thing wrong with multidim arrays is that they're not
what the SQL standard asks for. However, the original point in this
thread was that we have some very bizarre corner-case behavior for empty
arrays. I'm going to be disappointed
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 06/12/2013 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm going to be disappointed if all we can get out of this is
a cardinality() function, and nothing is done about the empty-array
semantics.
Well, we can't change the zero-dim behavior without breaking backwards
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 06/12/2013 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm going to be disappointed if all we can get out of this is
a cardinality() function, and nothing is done about the empty-array
semantics.
On 2013.06.12 10:11 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Multidim arrays are why we can't have nice things.
Yeah, I think that was not our best moment. :-(
Actually, if you think about it, we've never had arrays in PostgreSQL
... we have always had matrixes. If you think about things that way,
most of
On 13 June 2013 04:26, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
On 06/12/2013 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm going to be disappointed if all we can get out of this is
a cardinality()
On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Brendan Jurd dire...@gmail.com wrote:
There have been attempts to add a cardinality function in the past, as
it is required by the SQL spec, but these attempts have stalled when
trying to decide how it should handle multidim arrays. Having it
return the length of
21 matches
Mail list logo
