| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Range Types: empty ranges |
| Date: | 2011-02-11 20:14:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1297455273.654.9.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 14:14 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > It's really that it has nice mathematical properties coming from set
> > theory. Take the distributive law:
> >
> > A UNION (B INTERSECT C) = (A UNION B) INTERSECT (A UNION C)
>
> But the basic range type isn't even closed under UNION.
An excellent point. Allow me to move the target a little:
WHERE A && B AND A && C
and:
WHERE A && (B INTERSECT C)
That seems like a logically sound transformation, but if (B INTERSECT C)
is empty, it relies on the empty range for those two to be equivalent.
And that would be a runtime error, caught during testing only if you're
lucky.
Now, I agree that lack of closure on UNION exhibits many of the problems
that I am pointing out related to forbidding empty ranges. However, I'm
not sure if that means we should give up on either.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-11 20:14:41 | Re: Range Types: empty ranges |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-11 20:11:38 | Re: Replication server timeout patch |