Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We may need another extension to the array literal syntax in
> > order to deal with this. I'll report back after I've had some time to
> > study it.
>
> There already is support in array_in for specification of the array
> dimensions (
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Is this a TODO?
Probably -- something like:
Modify array literal representation to handle array index lower bound
of other than one
Joe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http:/
Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Is this a TODO?
>
> Probably -- something like:
>Modify array literal representation to handle array index lower bound
>of other than one
Added to TODO.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We may need another extension to the array literal syntax in
> order to deal with this. I'll report back after I've had some time to
> study it.
There already is support in array_in for specification of the array
dimensions (though it may be suffering bit
Tom Lane wrote:
Of course; I suppose this bug goes back to Berkeley days. We just
hadn't recognized it before (or at least I hadn't).
Neither had I. But the changes in 7.4 probably make it more likely
people will bump into this as a problem.
Without looking to confirm, I believe SQL99 defines an
Tom Lane wrote:
The other point about pg_dump failing to correctly restore arrays with
nondefault lower bounds is a good one, though. We need to think about
how to fix that.
I'll put some thought into it, but note that it is hardly a new issue --
it's been possible to create an array with < 1 low
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll put some thought into it, but note that it is hardly a new issue --
Of course; I suppose this bug goes back to Berkeley days. We just
hadn't recognized it before (or at least I hadn't).
regards, tom lane
Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Because array_prepend keeps the subscripts of the existing array
>> elements the same. This was discussed during development of the
>> code, but I don't see anything in the documentation that mentions it.
> It could perhaps be added to t
Tom Lane wrote:
Rajesh Kumar Mallah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
can anyone explain why
SELECT array_lower(array_prepend(0, ARRAY[1,2,3]), 1);
returns 0 not 1
Because array_prepend keeps the subscripts of the existing array
elements the same. This was discussed during development of the
code, but I
Rajesh Kumar Mallah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> can anyone explain why
> SELECT array_lower(array_prepend(0, ARRAY[1,2,3]), 1);
> returns 0 not 1
Because array_prepend keeps the subscripts of the existing array
elements the same. This was discussed during development of the
code, but I don't s
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> can anyone explain why
> SELECT array_lower(array_prepend(0, ARRAY[1,2,3]), 1);
> returns 0 not 1
>
> because
>
> tradein_clients=# SELECT array_prepend(0, ARRAY[1,2,3]);
> +---+
> | array_prepend |
> +---+
> | {0,1,2,3}
Greetings!
can anyone explain why
SELECT array_lower(array_prepend(0, ARRAY[1,2,3]), 1);
returns 0 not 1
because
tradein_clients=# SELECT array_prepend(0, ARRAY[1,2,3]);
+---+
| array_prepend |
+---+
| {0,1,2,3} |
+---+
(1 row)
and
tradein_clients=# SE
12 matches
Mail list logo
