Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm ... isn't it NULL anyway, if the left side is NULL?
> I think the empty case is special, due to the rules on comparison predicate>s.
[ reads spec... ] Yeah, I think you are right.
Looks like our subplan impl
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Are the array iterator functions supposed to act sort of like
> > =ANY/=ALL except across an array instead of a subselect?
>
> Seems like a reasonable definition.
>
> > If so,
> > isStrict probably isn't right, si
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are the array iterator functions supposed to act sort of like
> =ANY/=ALL except across an array instead of a subselect?
Seems like a reasonable definition.
> If so,
> isStrict probably isn't right, since for an empty subselect the return
> value does
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matt Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > + if(value == 0)
> > + {
> > + /* elog(NOTICE, "array_iterator: value is null"); */
> > + return (0);
> > + }
>
> This patch is certainly wrong, as it will break array_iterator
Matt Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + if(value == 0)
> + {
> + /* elog(NOTICE, "array_iterator: value is null"); */
> + return (0);
> + }
This patch is certainly wrong, as it will break array_iterator for
non-pointer datatypes (no, I do not believe your
Hi,
I have been looking at the functions in array_iterator.so. So far they have
proved to be very useful. However, I have manage to find a very serious bug
where the array_iterator() function causes some very bad stack corruption.
The stack corruption appears to be caused because pointer da
