Re: unnesting multirange data types

On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 11:09 AM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 10:05:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > I also don't feel comfortable hurrying with unnest part to beta2.
> > > According to the open items wiki page, there should be beta3. Does
> > > unnest part have a chance for beta3?
> >
> > Hm. I'd prefer to avoid another forced initdb after beta2. On the
> > other hand, it's entirely likely that there will be some other thing
> > that forces that; in which case there'd be no reason not to push in
> > the unnest feature as well.
> >
> > I'd say let's sit on the unnest code for a little bit and see what
> > happens.
>
> I think $SUBJECT can't simultaneously offer too little to justify its own
> catversion bump and also offer enough to bypass feature freeze. If multirange
> is good without $SUBJECT, then $SUBJECT should wait for v15. Otherwise, the
> matter of the catversion bump should not delay commit of $SUBJECT.

FWIW, there is a patch implementing just unnest() function.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov