Обсуждение: Array dimension lost if dimension length is zero

An Npgsql user has reported an edge case use which seems to be a bug.

When sending a multidimensional array to PostgreSQL, if the length of a
dimension is 0, that dimension is lost. That is, the user sends a
2-dimensional array with 0 for both dimensions; trying to read this back
will return a 1-dimensional array.

It seems that another way to see this problem is this... Running "select
ARRAY[[1], [1]]::integer[]" returns "{{1},{1}}". However, running "select
ARRAY[[], []]::integer[]" returns "{}".

It seems important for the dimensionality of the array to be what was sent
regardless of the lengths; otherwise problems occur as the user expect back
a 2-dimensional array but receive a single-dimensional one...

For reference, the original issue is
https://github.com/npgsql/npgsql/issues/1271

Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> writes:
> An Npgsql user has reported an edge case use which seems to be a bug.
> When sending a multidimensional array to PostgreSQL, if the length of a
> dimension is 0, that dimension is lost. That is, the user sends a
> 2-dimensional array with 0 for both dimensions; trying to read this back
> will return a 1-dimensional array.

This is intentional: all empty arrays are alike, with zero dimensions
(not one dimension, but none).

Probably a lot of these decisions would be made differently if we were
starting over in a green field; but since we're not, I'm disinclined
to touch it.

            regards, tom lane

Ah, I see. And changing this in a major version is out of the question? It
makes dealing with arrays more complicated than it should be on the client
side etc.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> writes:
> > An Npgsql user has reported an edge case use which seems to be a bug.
> > When sending a multidimensional array to PostgreSQL, if the length of a
> > dimension is 0, that dimension is lost. That is, the user sends a
> > 2-dimensional array with 0 for both dimensions; trying to read this back
> > will return a 1-dimensional array.
>
> This is intentional: all empty arrays are alike, with zero dimensions
> (not one dimension, but none).
>
> Probably a lot of these decisions would be made differently if we were
> starting over in a green field; but since we're not, I'm disinclined
> to touch it.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>

>
> This is intentional: all empty arrays are alike, with zero dimensions
> (not one dimension, but none).
>

Also, note that when reading an empty array in binary encoding, the
dimension field contains one.

>>>>> "Shay" == Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> writes:

 >> This is intentional: all empty arrays are alike, with zero
 >> dimensions (not one dimension, but none).

 Shay> Also, note that when reading an empty array in binary encoding,
 Shay> the dimension field contains one.

Nope:

postgres=# select array_send('{}'::integer[]);
         array_send
----------------------------
 \x000000000000000000000017

(that's ndim=00000000, flags=00000000, element_oid=00000017)

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

Apologies, I misinterpreted the results.

I still think it may make sense to change this behavior in a major version
release, although I don't know what the PostgreSQL policy is on such
breakage.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
wrote:

> >>>>> "Shay" == Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> writes:
>
>  >> This is intentional: all empty arrays are alike, with zero
>  >> dimensions (not one dimension, but none).
>
>  Shay> Also, note that when reading an empty array in binary encoding,
>  Shay> the dimension field contains one.
>
> Nope:
>
> postgres=# select array_send('{}'::integer[]);
>          array_send
> ----------------------------
>  \x000000000000000000000017
>
> (that's ndim=00000000, flags=00000000, element_oid=00000017)
>
> --
> Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
>

Shay Rojansky <roji@roji.org> writes:
> I still think it may make sense to change this behavior in a major version
> release, although I don't know what the PostgreSQL policy is on such
> breakage.

I think there's basically no chance of that happening.  It would break an
enormous amount of code that currently isn't broken, to change to a
definition that's only arguably better than what we have.

            regards, tom lane