2015-03-22 11:30 GMT+01:00 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 22 March 2015 at 06:11, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
here is updated patch with array_position, array_positions
implementation.
It is based on committed code - so please, revert commit
On 22 March 2015 at 06:11, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
here is updated patch with array_position, array_positions implementation.
It is based on committed code - so please, revert commit
13dbc7a824b3f905904cab51840d37f31a07a9ef and apply this patch
I checked this and
Hi
here is updated patch with array_position, array_positions implementation.
It is based on committed code - so please, revert commit
13dbc7a824b3f905904cab51840d37f31a07a9ef and apply this patch
Regards
Pavel
2015-03-20 18:29 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
Pavel
do you have any idea about name for this function? array_position is ok?
+1 on array_position. It's possible at some point we'll actually want
array_offset that does what it claims.
+1 for array_position.
-1 for keeping array_offset. I'm not convinced that there are
sufficient use cases for
2015-03-21 0:27 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 3/20/15 2:48 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-20 18:47 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Pavel
On 3/20/15 2:48 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-20 18:47 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am thinking, so it is ok - it returns a offset,
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am thinking, so it is ok - it returns a offset, not position.
So you can't use it as a subscript? That sounds unfriendly. Almost
every function using this will be subtly broken.
I concur; perhaps offset was the design
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-20 17:49 GMT+01:00 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
There's an issue when the array's lower bound isn't 1:
select array_offset('[2:4]={1,2,3}'::int[], 1);
array_offset
--
1
(1 row)
whereas I would expect this to
2015-03-20 18:29 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-20 17:49 GMT+01:00 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
There's an issue when the array's lower bound isn't 1:
select array_offset('[2:4]={1,2,3}'::int[], 1);
array_offset
On 18 March 2015 at 19:03, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Pushed after adding error checks there and fixing the docs to match.
Please verify.
There's an issue when the array's lower bound isn't 1:
select array_offset('[2:4]={1,2,3}'::int[], 1);
array_offset
--
2015-03-20 17:49 GMT+01:00 Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com:
On 18 March 2015 at 19:03, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Pushed after adding error checks there and fixing the docs to match.
Please verify.
There's an issue when the array's lower bound isn't 1:
select
2015-03-20 18:47 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am thinking, so it is ok - it returns a offset, not position.
So you can't use it as a subscript? That sounds unfriendly. Almost
every function using this
2015-03-18 20:03 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-18 12:41 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to:
I am thinking, so this behave is correct (there is no other
possible), but it is only corner case for this functionality - and
if you are
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-18 20:03 GMT+01:00 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com:
Pushed after adding error checks there and fixing the docs to match.
Please verify.
it is looking well, thank you.
Thanks for checking.
small issue - there is not documented, so multidimensional
2015-03-18 3:45 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 3/17/15 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My main question regarding this patch is whether the behavior with MD
arrays is useful at all. Suppose I give it this:
alvherre=# select
2015-03-18 12:41 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to:
On 3/18/15 12:27 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
On 3/17/15 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My main question regarding this patch is whether the behavior with MD
arrays is useful at all. Suppose I give it this:
alvherre=# select
On 3/18/15 12:27 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
On 3/17/15 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My main question regarding this patch is whether the behavior with MD
arrays is useful at all. Suppose I give it this:
alvherre=# select array_offset('{{{1,2},{3,4},{5,6}},{{2,3},{4,5},{6,7}}}',
3);
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-18 12:41 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to:
I am thinking, so this behave is correct (there is no other
possible), but it is only corner case for this functionality - and
if you are thinking, so better to disallow it, I am not against. My
main focus is
My main question regarding this patch is whether the behavior with MD
arrays is useful at all. Suppose I give it this:
alvherre=# select array_offset('{{{1,2},{3,4},{5,6}},{{2,3},{4,5},{6,7}}}', 3);
array_offset
--
3
(1 fila)
What can I do with the 3 value it returned?
On 3/17/15 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My main question regarding this patch is whether the behavior with MD
arrays is useful at all. Suppose I give it this:
alvherre=# select array_offset('{{{1,2},{3,4},{5,6}},{{2,3},{4,5},{6,7}}}', 3);
array_offset
--
3
(1 fila)
On 3/11/15 1:19 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-11 2:57 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
I don't think we need both array_offset and
2015-03-11 22:50 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 3/11/15 4:37 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
+ /*
+ * array_offset - returns the offset of a value in an array
(array_offset and
+ * array_offset_start are wrappers for safe call (look on opr_sanity
test) a
+ *
On 3/10/15 9:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
You still duplicate the type cache code, but many other array functions do
that too so I will not hold that against you. (Maybe somebody should write
separate patch that would put all
2015-03-10 16:53 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 3/10/15 9:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
You still duplicate the type cache code, but many other array functions
do
that too so I will not hold that
On 3/11/15 1:29 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
What is this comment supposed to mean? There is no 'width_array'...
It is typo (I am sorry) - should be width_bucket(, array)
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=e80252d424278abf65b624669c8e6b3fe8587cac
The code is
2015-03-11 22:14 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 3/11/15 1:29 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
What is this comment supposed to mean? There is no 'width_array'...
It is typo (I am sorry) - should be width_bucket(, array)
On 3/11/15 4:37 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
+ /*
+ * array_offset - returns the offset of a value in an array
(array_offset and
+ * array_offset_start are wrappers for safe call (look on opr_sanity
test) a
+ * array_offset_common function.
+ *
+ * Returns NULL when value is not found. It
On 3/10/15 5:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
That said, this pattern with fn_extra is repeated a lot, even just in
the backend (not counting contrib or extensions). It would be nice if
there was generic support for this.
What do you mean by generic support?
2015-03-11 2:57 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
wrote:
I don't think we need both array_offset and array_offset_start; can't
both
SQL functions just call one C function?
Not if you want the opr_sanity tests
2015-03-10 22:53 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 2/22/15 5:19 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-02-22 3:00 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:p...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 28/01/15 08:15, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-28 0:01 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
You still duplicate the type cache code, but many other array functions do
that too so I will not hold that against you. (Maybe somebody should write
separate patch that would put all that duplicate code into common
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
I don't think we need both array_offset and array_offset_start; can't both
SQL functions just call one C function?
Not if you want the opr_sanity tests to pass.
(But I'm seriously starting to wonder if that's actually a
2015-03-10 19:50 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2015-03-10 15:30 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
I am sure in agreement with the idea that it would be good to factor
out the common typecache code (for setting up my_extra).
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have not good feeling about it too. If we would to enhance this are, we
probably need a specific flinfo field and flags to specify more precious the
context of cached informations. my_extra should be reserved for
2015-03-10 15:30 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
You still duplicate the type cache code, but many other array functions
do
that too so I will not hold that against you. (Maybe somebody should
write
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2015-03-10 15:30 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
I am sure in agreement with the idea that it would be good to factor
out the common typecache code (for setting up my_extra). Any chance
we get a preliminary patch that does that
On 3/10/15 10:53 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 3/10/15 9:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
You still duplicate the type cache code, but many other array
functions do
that too so I will not hold that against you. (Maybe somebody should
On 3/10/15 2:43 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
There is not all that much commonality; many functions don't bother to
populate all of the ArrayMetaState fields because they don't need all of
them. (The ones you quote don't, in fact.) You are either going to end
up with a subroutine
Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com writes:
That said, this pattern with fn_extra is repeated a lot, even just in
the backend (not counting contrib or extensions). It would be nice if
there was generic support for this.
What do you mean by generic support? Most of those functions are doing
On 2/22/15 5:19 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-02-22 3:00 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:p...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 28/01/15 08:15, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-28 0:01 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com
On 22/02/15 12:19, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-02-22 3:00 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com
mailto:p...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 28/01/15 08:15, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-28 0:01 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
2015-02-22 3:00 GMT+01:00 Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 28/01/15 08:15, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-28 0:01 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/27/15 4:36 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
It is only partially identical - I
On 28/01/15 08:15, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-28 0:01 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/27/15 4:36 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
It is only partially identical - I would to use cache for
array_offset, but it is not necessary
On 1/27/15 4:36 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-26 23:29 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/26/15 4:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Any way to reduce the code duplication between the array and
non-array versions? Maybe factor out
2015-01-26 23:29 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/26/15 4:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Any way to reduce the code duplication between the array and
non-array versions? Maybe factor out the operator caching code?
I though about it - but there is different checks,
2015-01-28 0:01 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/27/15 4:36 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-26 23:29 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com mailto:
jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/26/15 4:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Any way to reduce the code
On 1/24/15 2:48 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
with array_offsets - returns a array of offsets
+ entryreturns a offset of first occurrence of some element in a
array. It uses
should be
+ entryreturns the offset of the first occurrence of some element in
an array. It uses
+
2015-01-26 23:01 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/24/15 2:48 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
with array_offsets - returns a array of offsets
+ entryreturns a offset of first occurrence of some element in a
array. It uses
should be
+ entryreturns the offset of
On 1/26/15 4:17 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
Any way to reduce the code duplication between the array and non-array
versions? Maybe factor out the operator caching code?
I though about it - but there is different checks, different result processing,
different result type.
I didn't find any
Hi
with array_offsets - returns a array of offsets
Regards
Pavel
2015-01-20 21:32 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/20/15 11:12 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am sending updated version - it allow third optional argument that
specify where searching should to start. With it
Hi
I am sending updated version - it allow third optional argument that
specify where searching should to start. With it is possible repeatably
call this function.
Regards
Pavel
2015-01-17 23:43 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com:
Hi
here is a proof concept of array_offset
2015-01-20 21:32 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/20/15 11:12 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am sending updated version - it allow third optional argument that
specify where searching should to start. With it is possible repeatably
call this function.
What happened to
On 1/20/15 11:12 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am sending updated version - it allow third optional argument that specify
where searching should to start. With it is possible repeatably call this
function.
What happened to returning an array of offsets? I think that would be both
easier to use
Hi
here is a proof concept of array_offset function
possible question:
* used comparation = or IS NOT DISTINCT FROM
In this initial proof concept I used IS NOT DISTINCT FROM operator - but
my opinion is not strong in this question. Both has some advantages and
disadvantages.
Regards
Pavel
2015-01-16 17:57 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/16/15 3:39 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am proposing a simple function, that returns a position of element in
array.
Yes please!
FUNCTION array_position(anyarray, anyelement) RETURNS int
That won't work on a
On 1/16/15 3:39 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am proposing a simple function, that returns a position of element in array.
Yes please!
FUNCTION array_position(anyarray, anyelement) RETURNS int
That won't work on a multi-dimensional array. Ideally it needs to accept a
slice or an element and
2015-01-16 17:57 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/16/15 3:39 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am proposing a simple function, that returns a position of element in
array.
Yes please!
FUNCTION array_position(anyarray, anyelement) RETURNS int
That won't work on a
On 1/16/15 11:16 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-16 17:57 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com
mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/16/15 3:39 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am proposing a simple function, that returns a position of element in
array.
Yes please!
2015-01-16 18:37 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/16/15 11:16 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-01-16 17:57 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com mailto:
jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 1/16/15 3:39 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I am proposing a simple function,
59 matches
Mail list logo
