From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: range_adjacent and discrete ranges |
Date: | 2011-11-18 19:47:46 |
Message-ID: | 23299.1321645666@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 10:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would it be better for them to silently transform such cases to "empty"?
> I wouldn't like to extend that to int4range(4,3), however. When the
> upper bound is less than the lower bound, it's almost certainly a
> mistake, and the user should be informed.
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.
> By the way, what does this have to do with canonical functions? This
> seems more like a constructor issue, and there is already a
> zero-argument constructor to make empty ranges.
What I was concerned about was whether Florian's idea of implementing
range_adjacent by testing for empty intervening range would work, or
would fail because of errors getting thrown.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-11-18 19:55:34 | Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-11-18 19:36:59 | Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches |