On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 08:55:49AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 31 May 2013 08:34, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 31 May 2013 02:52, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Testing 9.3beta, it seems that array_remove() may return an empty 1-d
> >> array whose upper bound is lower than its lower bound. I know that we
> >> discussed allowing this kind of array, but I don't think that
> >> discussion reached any conclusion, other than to agree that the
> >> current empty 0-d array behaviour would be kept in 9.3.
> >
> > That's right, zero-D is still the only supported representation of an
> > empty array, so when array_remove() yields an empty array it ought to
> > be zero-D. Good catch.
>
> Yeah, that's what I thought. Here's a patch to fix it, plus a new
> regression test to confirm that the result is a zero-D array.
Committed. Thanks.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
