From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: range_adjacent and discrete ranges |
Date: | 2011-11-19 18:52:22 |
Message-ID: | 1321728742.11794.56.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 14:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, probably not. However, I don't like the idea of
> '(3,4)'::int4range throwing an error, as it currently does, because it
> seems to require the application to have quite a lot of knowledge of the
> range semantics to avoid having errors sprung on it.
OK, then let's make '(3,4)'::int4range the empty range. (3,3) might be
OK as well (for any range type), because at least it's consistent.
The one that I find strange is [3,3), but I think that needs to work for
the range_adjacent idea to work. Seeing it as useful in the context of
range_adjacent might mean that it's useful elsewhere, too, so now I'm
leaning toward supporting [3,3) as an empty range.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-11-19 18:57:27 | Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation |
Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2011-11-19 18:49:29 | Re: Refactoring on DROP/ALTER SET SCHEMA/ALTER RENAME TO statement |