Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, 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>, 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 16:30:02
Message-ID: 1318350602.1724.173.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 12:09 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The cure seems worse than the disease. What is so bad about '[]'?

OK, so we stick with the 3-argument form. Do we have a default for the
third argument, or do we scrap it to avoid confusion?

There were some fairly strong objections to using '[]' as the default or
having the default vary between types. So, the only real option
remaining, if we do have a default, is '[)'.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2011-10-11 16:40:32 Re: Dumping roles improvements?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-10-11 16:18:18 Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor