| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unnesting multirange data types |
| Date: | 2021-07-15 15:47:23 |
| Message-ID: | 3667191.1626364043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-Jun-19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd say let's sit on the unnest code for a little bit and see what
>> happens.
> ... So, almost a month has gone by, and we still don't have multirange
> unnest(). Looking at the open items list, it doesn't look like we have
> anything that would require a catversion bump. Does that mean that
> we're going to ship pg14 without multirange unnest?
> That seems pretty sad, as the usability of the feature is greatly
> reduced. Just look at what's being suggested:
> https://postgr.es/m/20210715121508.GA30348@depesz.com
> To me this screams of an incomplete datatype. I far prefer a beta3
> initdb than shipping 14GA without multirange unnest.
Yeah, that seems pretty horrid. I still don't like the way the
array casts were done, but I'd be okay with pushing the unnest
addition.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-07-15 16:11:38 | Re: pg_upgrade does not upgrade pg_stat_statements properly |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-07-15 15:46:08 | Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option |