Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> More formally, let there be two arbitrary ranges
>   a,b,i_a,i_b
>   c,d,i_c,i_d
> where the first two parameters are the lower respectively upper bound, and
> the last two are booleans saying whether the lower respectively upper bound
> is inclusive (true) or exclusive (false).

> These ranges are then adjacent exactly if the range
>   b,c,!i_b,!i_c
> is empty.

I tried to implement this, and I think it has a small bug.  It works as
stated if we have b < c.  However, if we have b == c, then we want to
consider the ranges adjacent if i_b != i_c (ie, only one of them claims
the common boundary point).  But a singleton range is empty unless it's
inclusive on both sides.  So we have to have a special case when the
bounds are equal.

(If b > c, then of course we have to consider the two ranges in the
opposite order.)

Attached is a draft patch for this.  It passes regression tests but I've
not tried to exercise it with a canonical function that actually does
something different.  It's going to be a bit slower than Jeff's
original, because it does not only range_cmp_bound_values but also a
make_range cycle (in most cases).  So I guess the question is how much
we care about supporting canonical functions with non-default policies.
Thoughts?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: range_adjacent and discrete ranges at 2011-11-18 12:32:47 from Florian Pflug

Responses

• Re: range_adjacent and discrete ranges at 2011-11-23 21:10:04 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2011-11-23 03:28:14
	Subject: Re: Permissions checks for range-type support functions
Previous:	From: Peter Geoghegan	Date: 2011-11-23 01:09:23
	Subject: Re: Inlining comparators as a performance optimisation