Re: So what's an "empty" array anyway?

On Oct 21, 2008, at 14:16, Tom Lane wrote:

> Well, we can't do that because it would clearly break too much  
> existing
> code.  '{}' has got to result in something you can successfully
> concatenate more elements to.

Right, that's what I was trying to day. Badly, I guess.

> But either the current behavior with
> a zero-dimension array, or a one-dimensional length-zero array would
> presumably work okay.

Right, that sounds right to me.

Thanks,

David