| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, 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: | 2011-10-10 17:53:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAA-aLv7hnqADcevtNovz5DQo3ZzDCkC7qfieE2zMEx7AEMzCAQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 October 2011 18:45, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 18:39 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> So the default boundaries should be '[]' as opposed to '[)' as it is
>> now.
>
> Would that vary between range types? In other words, do I bring back
> default_flags?
>
> If not, I think a lot of people will object. The most common use-case
> for range types are for continuous ranges like timestamps. And (as I
> pointed out in reply to Florian) there are good reasons to use the '[)'
> convention for those cases.
I'm proposing it for discrete ranges. For continuous ranges, I guess
it makes sense to have "up to, but not including". The same boundary
inclusivity/exclusivity thing seems unintuitive for discrete ranges.
This has the downside of inconsistency, but I don't think that's
really a solid argument against it since their use will be different
anyway.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-10-10 18:06:16 | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-10-10 17:52:39 | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |