| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
| Date: | 2011-10-11 16:03:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1318348992.1724.169.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 06:28 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > Certainly not the end of the world, but is the convenience of being
> > able to write somerange(a, b) instead of somerange(a, b, '[)')
> > really worth it? I kind of doubt that...
>
> You're making a persuasive argument for the latter based solely on the
> clarity. If people see that 3rd element in the DDL, or need to
> provide it, it's *very* obvious what's going on.
That was how I originally thought, but we're also providing built-in
range types like tsrange and daterange. I could see how if the former
excluded the endpoint and the latter included it, it could be confusing.
We could go back to having different constructor names for different
inclusivity; e.g. int4range_cc(1,10). That at least removes the
awkwardness of typing (and seeing) '[]'.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-11 16:09:01 | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-11 15:48:58 | Re: Overhead cost of Serializable Snapshot Isolation |