| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Range types |
| Date: | 2009-12-15 15:27:40 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070912150727n39afdccby5d2fcad05a82f26c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I also have to say that I'm very skeptical of the argument
>> that there is only a small list of types people will want this for.
>
> I'm not sure that anyone has argued that. I did suggest that there
> might be a small list of types for which we should provide discrete
> behavior (ie, with next/previous functions) and the rest could have
> continuous behavior (without that assumption). But I quite agree
> that we want both types of ranges.
Oh, I think you're right. I guess I'm skeptical that the set for
which discrete treatment is appropriate is a small, fixed set, too.
Unless hard-coding that assumption buys us some really significant
economies, I think we should avoid doing so.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2009-12-15 15:30:09 | Re: Range types |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2009-12-15 15:21:57 | Re: Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode |