On 5 April 2013 07:43, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Well, if we're going to take that hard a line on it, then we can't > change anything about array data storage or the existing functions' > behavior; which leaves us with either doing nothing at all, or > inventing new functions that have saner behavior while leaving the > old ones in place.
And then we are in the awkward position of trying to explain the differences in behaviour between the old and new functions ... presumably with a dash of "for historical reasons" and a sprinkling of "to preserve compatibility" in every other paragraph. The other suggestion that had been tossed around elsewhere upthread was inventing a new type that serves the demand for a straightforward mutable list, which has exactly one dimension, and which may be sensibly empty. Those few who are interested in dimensions >= 2 could keep on using "arrays", with all their backwards-compatible silliness intact, and everybody else could migrate to "lists" at their leisure. I don't hate the latter idea from a user perspective, but from a developer perspective I suspect there are valid objections to be made. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
