Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation
Date: 2011-11-19 18:57:27
Message-ID: 1321729047.11794.60.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The singleton range constructors don't work terribly well.
...

> I don't immediately see a solution that's better than dropping the
> single-argument range constructors.

We could change the name, I suppose, but that seems awkward. I'm
hesitant to remove them because the alternative is significantly more
verbose:

numrange(1.0, 1.0, '[]');

But I don't have any particularly good ideas to save them, either.

Regarding the zero-argument (empty) constructors, I'd be fine removing
them. They don't seem to cause problems, but the utility is also very
minor.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kohei KaiGai 2011-11-19 19:01:39 Re: Review for "Add permission check on SELECT INTO"
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2011-11-19 18:52:22 Re: range_adjacent and discrete ranges