Re: Some array semantics issues - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Some array semantics issues
Date
Msg-id 10079.1132169585@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Some array semantics issues  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Some array semantics issues  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> And changing that would make it harder to test just the contents of the array
> without having to match bounds as well.

Fair point, but currently it's impossible to make a comparison that
*does* consider the bounds, which one would think would be the ordinary
meaning of equality.

> I'm not entirely against the idea of making array bounds significant
> but I guess we would need some convenient way of taking them out of
> the picture too.  Perhaps another equality operator.

I could go for a separate operator that has the current behavior
(might as well ignore number of dimensions too, if we're going to
ignore bounds).  Any thoughts about the operator name?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dann Corbit"
Date:
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE
Next
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE