| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Range types |
| Date: | 2009-12-15 15:19:47 |
| Message-ID: | 15453.1260890387@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I also have to say that I'm very skeptical of the argument
> that there is only a small list of types people will want this for.
I'm not sure that anyone has argued that. I did suggest that there
might be a small list of types for which we should provide discrete
behavior (ie, with next/previous functions) and the rest could have
continuous behavior (without that assumption). But I quite agree
that we want both types of ranges.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2009-12-15 15:21:57 | Re: Compiling HEAD with -Werror int 64-bit mode |
| Previous Message | Nicolas Barbier | 2009-12-15 15:16:28 | Re: Range types |