Re: range_agg

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: range_agg
Date: 2020-03-07 23:45:44
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> There's another use case not yet covered here that could make this
> even more complex, we should probably plan for it: multi-ranges with
> weights.

I'm inclined to reject that as completely out of scope. The core
argument for unifying multiranges with ranges, if you ask me, is
to make the data type closed under union. Weights are from some
other universe.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-03-08 00:45:22 pgsql: pageinspect: Fix types used for bt_metap() columns.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-03-07 23:42:16 Re: Bug in pg_restore with EventTrigger in parallel mode