Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dmitry Dolgov
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
Date
Msg-id 20200917135627.7koag6rnhshgjlai@localhost
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
List pgsql-hackers
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 02:47:54PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I have my concerns about the performance side of this implementation as
> > well as how surprising this would be for users, but at the same time the
> > patch already does something similar and the code change should not be
> > that big, so why not - I can include this change into the next rebased
> > version. But it still can cause some confusion as it's not going to work
> > for negative indices, so
> >
> >     update foo set a[-10] = 1;
> >
> > and
> >
> >     select a[-10] from foo;
> >
> > can return different value from what was assigned. Otherwise, if we will
> > try to fix a[-10] assignment in the same way, it will prepend the array
> > and a[10] will not return the same value.
>
> What is semantic of negative index? It has clean semantic in C, but in
> PLpgSQL?

It's just a common pattern for jsonb when a negative index count from
the end of an array. I believe it was like that from the very earlier
implementations, although can't comment on that from the semantic point
of view.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Delay of standby shutdown
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow CURRENT_ROLE in GRANTED BY