Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
while it would be nice to improve that - it is actually documented quite
clearly.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/arrays.html has:
"However, the current implementation does not enforce the array size
limits — the behavior is the same as for arrays of unspecified length.
Actually, the current implementation does not enforce the declared
number of dimensions either. Arrays of a particular element type are all
considered to be of the same type, regardless of size or number of
dimensions. So, declaring number of dimensions or sizes in CREATE TABLE
is simply documentation, it does not affect run-time behavior. "
A documented flaw is much better than an undocumented one but it's still
a flaw, and a pretty bad one at that. It's like having a compiler that
doesn't complain when you define a C-function that takes an int** and
then pass an int*.
Would it be hard to enforce a real check? The implementation could use
GUC settings like 'enforce_array_dimensions' and 'enforce_array_lengths'
that could be set to false for the legacy implementations that rely on
the current behavior. I know Tom added the ability to have NULL values
in the arrays. Perhaps now is the time to improve the type semantics as
well?
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
