On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> Well, it's a compatibility function...
>
>> compatible with what?
>
> It's required by the SQL standard.
>
>> The other thing that frankly bothers me is that we appear to have
>> acquired this function by a curious process which involved no proposal
>> or discussion that I have discovered. If there had been proper and
>> adequate discussion before the item was committed I wouldn't be making a
>> fuss now, whether or not I agreed with the result.
>
> I think Peter put it in under the assumption that meeting spec-required
> syntax would always pass muster. It is however fair to question whether
> he made the right extrapolation of the spec's definition to cases that
> are not in the spec.
>
> Personally I am in favor of changing it to give the total number of
> array elements, on the grounds that (1) that's as defensible a reading
> of the spec as the other and (2) it would add actual new functionality
> rather than being only a relabeling of array_length.
>
> I will leave that item on the Open Items list. I take it no one's
> excited about the others?
I'm excited about some of them, but not to the point of not wanting to
ship beta. So +1 for removing them as per your suggestions.
...Robert
