| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BETWEEN SYMMETRIC/ASYMMETRIC |
| Date: | 2002-04-18 03:27:26 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOEEDBCCAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > So should I go ahead and submit a patch for BETWEEN that adds SYMMETRY
> > support in the old-style code, and then at a later stage submit
> a patch that
> > makes BETWEEN a proper node?
>
> I'd prefer to do it in one step. I have not noticed any large
> groundswell of demand for BETWEEN SYMMETRIC ... so I don't see a good
> reason for implementing a stopgap version. (It would be a stopgap
> mainly because the planner wouldn't recognize it as a range query.)
OK, I'll go for the whole change - just expect lots of questions :)
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-18 03:43:19 | Re: LIMIT 1 FOR UPDATE or FOR UPDATE LIMIT 1? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-18 03:24:55 | Re: BETWEEN SYMMETRIC/ASYMMETRIC |