Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> 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 rot for lack of use/testing).
I think the main thing needed is some thought about when array_out
should print dimensions; we don't want it doing so all the time, for
both clutter and backwards compatibility reasons. Maybe "whenever any
lower bound is not 1" would do; or maybe we want to invent a GUC switch
to control its behavior.
regards, tom lane
