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
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 |