Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Is this a TODO?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
