Markus Bertheau ☭ wrote:
> Hmm, this gets really complicated and inconsistent. Complicated means
> unusable. What about modifying the dimension syntax such that the second
> number means number of elements instead of upper bound? That particular
> problem would go away then, and array_upper('[0:0]={}'::int[]) can
> return the correct 0 then.
>
> What I'm actually worrying about is that array_upper(array(select 1
> where false)) returns 0.
>
> An option would be to drop the possibility to let the array start at
> another index than 0. I don't know why it was decided to do that in the
> first place. It seems a rather odd feature to me.
>
Actually I like both of these ideas, and have advocated the second one
myself before. But it isn't backward compatible -- anyone else have an
opinion? SQL2003 actually specifies that an array *should* start at 1:
4.10.2 Arrays
An array is a collection A in which each element is associated with
exactly one ordinal position in A. If n is the cardinality of A, then
the ordinal position p of an element is an integer in the range 1 (one)
≤ p ≤ n.
Joe