Re: Range Types and extensions

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Range Types and extensions
Date: 2011-06-06 16:18:14
Message-ID: 1307377094.2402.140.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 06:56 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2011/6/6 Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>:
> > Jeff Davis wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to take another look at Range Types and whether part of it
> >> should be an extension. Some of these issues relate to extensions in
> >> general, not just range types.
> >>
> >> First of all, what are the advantages to being in core?
>
> it should be supported by FOREACH statement in PL/pgSQL

Oh, good idea. It would only work for discrete ranges though.

However, I would need to somehow reintroduce the concept of "next",
which has some hazards to it (as Tom pointed out, we don't want someone
to define the "next" for a float to be "+1.0"). I'll have to think about
this.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-06-06 16:23:52 Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-06-06 16:17:10 Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table