Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(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 17:45:01
Message-ID: 1318268701.1724.145.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-10-10 17:48:19 Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2011-10-10 17:41:42 Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor