On 1/13/14, 5:33 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> So I guess the question is: Is it worth all that hassle to remove a
> misfeature you have to go out of your way to use? Is support for non-1
> lower bounds stopping us from doing something useful and important? Or
> is it just an irritation that it exists?
It's not an irritation to -hackers, but it is an irritation for anyone that cares about data quality, because you're
forcedto code all of your stuff to always look at array_lower().
Actually, now that I think about it, if you want to be really safe you would actually force your code to use a
differentlower bound so you're more likely to discover code that's broken.
So it really is a big pain for users that know what's going on. And it will become a big pain for users that don't know
ifthey ever accidentally end up with non-1 arrays. :)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net