Why so few built-in range types?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Why so few built-in range types?
Date: 2011-11-29 17:01:02
Message-ID: 22221.1322586062@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

One thing that bothered me while looking at the range types patch is
that it seemed you'd been mighty conservative about creating built-in
range types. In particular, I don't understand why there's not a
standard float8range type; that seems like a pretty common case.
I'd have also expected to see a standard textrange type. What was
the rationale for leaving these out?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-11-29 17:09:21 Re: GiST range-contained-by searches versus empty ranges
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-11-29 16:50:28 Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe