On 1/5/11 6:19 PM, Florian Pflug wrote:
Sorry, but It isn't too intuitive. Minimally for me. Why you don't
thinking about simple functions with only positive arguments. There
are only four combinations. I don't think we must have only one super
function.
we need functionality for:
a) get first
2011/1/5 Florian Pflug :
> On Jan5, 2011, at 15:17 , Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2011/1/5 Florian Pflug :
>>> How so? You'd still be able to get the last element by simply writing
>>>
>>> array_relative(some_array, array[-1]).
>>>
>>> Or, if we made the function variadic, by writing
>>>
>>> array_rel
On Jan5, 2011, at 15:17 , Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2011/1/5 Florian Pflug :
>> How so? You'd still be able to get the last element by simply writing
>>
>> array_relative(some_array, array[-1]).
>>
>> Or, if we made the function variadic, by writing
>>
>> array_relative(some_array, -1).
>
> Sorr
2011/1/5 Florian Pflug :
> On Jan5, 2011, at 13:08 , Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> 2011/1/5 Florian Pflug :
>>> On Jan5, 2011, at 10:25 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On sön, 2011-01-02 at 12:47 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> The only way around that would be to introduce magic constants "lower",
>>>
On Jan5, 2011, at 13:08 , Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2011/1/5 Florian Pflug :
>> On Jan5, 2011, at 10:25 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On sön, 2011-01-02 at 12:47 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
The only way around that would be to introduce magic constants "lower",
"upper" that
can be used
2011/1/5 Florian Pflug :
> On Jan5, 2011, at 10:25 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On sön, 2011-01-02 at 12:47 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
>>> The only way around that would be to introduce magic constants "lower",
>>> "upper" that
>>> can be used within index expressions and evaluate to the indexed
On Jan5, 2011, at 10:25 , Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On sön, 2011-01-02 at 12:47 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> The only way around that would be to introduce magic constants "lower",
>> "upper" that
>> can be used within index expressions and evaluate to the indexed dimension's
>> lower
>> and up
Hello
2011/1/5 Peter Eisentraut :
> On sön, 2011-01-02 at 12:47 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
>> > Here's a patch to add support for negative index values in fetching
>> > elements from an array.
>>
negative arguments for array can be really strange
>> That won't work. In SQL, array indices don't
On sön, 2011-01-02 at 12:47 +0100, Florian Pflug wrote:
> > Here's a patch to add support for negative index values in fetching
> > elements from an array.
>
> That won't work. In SQL, array indices don't necessarily start with 0 (or 1,
> or *any*
> single value).
FYI, this is true for PostgreS
On Jan2, 2011, at 11:45 , Valtonen, Hannu wrote:
> I ran into the problem of getting the last n elements out of an array and
> while some workarounds do exist:
> (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2949881/getting-the-last-element-of-a-postgres-array-declaratively)
> I was still annoyed that I co
Hi,
I ran into the problem of getting the last n elements out of an array
and while some workarounds do exist:
(http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2949881/getting-the-last-element-of-a-postgres-array-declaratively)
I was still annoyed that I couldn't just ask for the last n values in an
array
11 matches
Mail list logo
