From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cause of intermittent rangetypes regression test failures |
Date: | 2011-11-14 13:11:16 |
Message-ID: | 24134.1321276276@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 Sun, 2011-11-13 at 15:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think this demonstrates that the current definition of range_before is
>> broken. It is not reasonable for it to throw an error on a perfectly
>> valid input ... at least, not unless you'd like to mark it VOLATILE so
>> that the planner will not risk calling it.
>>
>> What shall we have it do instead?
> We could have it return NULL, I suppose. I was worried that that would
> lead to confusion between NULL and the empty range, but it might be
> better than marking it VOLATILE.
It needs to return FALSE, actually. After further reading I realized
that you have that behavior hard-wired into the range GiST routines,
and it's silly to make the stand-alone versions of the function act
differently.
This doesn't seem terribly unreasonable: we just have to document
that the empty range is neither before nor after any other range.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-11-14 13:22:40 | Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING to Set Operations |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2011-11-14 13:07:54 | Re: FDW system columns |