From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(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 16:09:01 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYeAccJ+GV+w05Ti-AVQoCBZ6LQ=ZWFOtxdfWbE_zL2+g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> 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) '[]'.
The cure seems worse than the disease. What is so bad about '[]'?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-10-11 16:12:10 | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-10-11 16:03:12 | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |