Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, it's a compatibility function...
> compatible with what?
It's required by the SQL standard.
> The other thing that frankly bothers me is that we appear to have
> acquired this function by a curious process which involved no proposal
> or discussion that I have discovered. If there had been proper and
> adequate discussion before the item was committed I wouldn't be making a
> fuss now, whether or not I agreed with the result.
I think Peter put it in under the assumption that meeting spec-required
syntax would always pass muster. It is however fair to question whether
he made the right extrapolation of the spec's definition to cases that
are not in the spec.
Personally I am in favor of changing it to give the total number of
array elements, on the grounds that (1) that's as defensible a reading
of the spec as the other and (2) it would add actual new functionality
rather than being only a relabeling of array_length.
I will leave that item on the Open Items list. I take it no one's
excited about the others?
regards, tom lane