| From: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Range Types and extensions |
| Date: | 2011-06-06 05:21:20 |
| Message-ID: | 4DEC63D0.1050304@darrenduncan.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2011/6/6 Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>:
>> Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> I'd like to take another look at Range Types and whether part of it
>>> should be an extension. Some of these issues relate to extensions in
>>> general, not just range types.
>>>
>>> First of all, what are the advantages to being in core?
>
> it should be supported by FOREACH statement in PL/pgSQL
Yes, absolutely. I know this feature is loved in Perl. But this usage would
only work for a more limited range of data types, namely those over which one
can build a sequence generator, such as integers, because they have a
next-value/prev-value function defined. In other words, while range types in
general would work for any ordered type, FOREACH would only work for the subset
of those that are ordinal types. -- Darren Duncan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dan Ports | 2011-06-06 05:58:08 | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-06-06 04:56:47 | Re: Range Types and extensions |