On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> ISTM that if we'd had Yury's code in there from the beginning, what we
>>> would define this as meaning is "a[3:4][:5]", ie the implied range runs
>>> from whatever the array lower bound is up to the specified subscript.
>
>> Gosh, our arrays are strange. I would have expected a[3:4][5] to mean
>> a[3:4][5:5].
>
> Yeah, probably, now that you mention it ... but that seems like too much
> of a compatibility break. Or does anyone want to argue for just doing
> that and never mind the compatibility issues? This is a pretty weird
> corner case already; there can't be very many people relying on it.
To be honest, I'd be inclined not to change the semantics at all. But
that's just me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company