Hello 2010/8/9 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> writes: >>> I have attached v4 of the patch against HEAD, and also an incremental >>> patch showing just my changes against v3. >>> >>> I'll mark this as ready for committer. > > Looking at this, I want to question the implode/explode naming. I think > those names are too cute by half, not particularly mnemonic, not visibly > related to the similar existing functions, and not friendly to any > future extension in the same area. > > My first thought is that we should go back to the string_to_array and > array_to_string names. The key reason not to use those names was the > conflict with the old functions if you didn't specify a third argument, > but where is the advantage of not specifying the third argument? It > would be a lot simpler for people to understand if we just said "the > two-argument forms work like this, while the three-argument forms work > like that". This is especially reasonable because the difference in > behavior is about nulls in the array, which is exactly what the third > argument exists to specify. >
The name isn't important - I believe so you or Robert can choose the best name. Important is default behave. On an start is idea, so functions that lost some information isn't optimal - and it is array_to_string problem - because this function quietly skip NULL fields, if there are. So it was a motivation to write these functions. Regards Pavel Stehule > [ Sorry for not complaining about this before, but I was on vacation > when the previous naming discussion went on. ] > > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
