| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Range types |
| Date: | 2009-12-15 21:16:46 |
| Message-ID: | 14510.1260911806@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:31:05AM -0800, Scott Bailey wrote:
>> As for the extra bits, would it be better to just require continuous
>> ranges to be either [] or [)? But I don't know which would be
>> preferred. My inclination would be toward [), but Tom seemed to
>> indicate that perhaps [] was the norm.
> [] makes certain operations--namely the important ones in
> calendaring--impossible, or at least incredibly kludgy, to do. I
> think we ought to leave openness at each end up to the user,
> independent of the underlying implementation details.
Yes. A range implementation that couldn't support all four cases
of [], [), (], () would be seriously crippled IMO.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-15 21:22:26 | Re: Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode |
| Previous Message | Kurt Harriman | 2009-12-15 21:12:47 | Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions |