| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Range types |
| Date: | 2009-12-16 20:41:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20091216204131.GJ4156@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > In short, I think that while it is possible to define ranges of strings,
> > it is not as useful as one would like.
>
> Note it is not the *range* that is the problem, it is the assumption
> that there's a unique "next" string. There's no unique next in the
> reals or rationals either, but we have no problem considering intervals
> over those sets.
Yeah, agreed. It's easy (I think) to define more useful ranges of
strings if you don't insist in having "next".
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-16 20:42:27 | Re: Range types |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-12-16 20:35:38 | Re: Range types |