Re: range_agg

On 11/21/19 1:06 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2. I don't like introduction "safe" operators - now the basic operators
> are doubled, and nobody without documentation will use @* operators.
>
> It is not intuitive. I think is better to map this functionality to
> basic operators +- * and implement it just for pairs (Multirange,
> Multirange) and (Multirange, Range) if it is possible
>
> It's same relation line Numeric X integer. There should not be
> introduced new operators. If somebody need it for ranges, then he can
> use cast to multirange, and can continue.
> [snip]
> 3. There are not prepared casts -
>
> postgres=# select int8range(10,15)::int8multirange;
> ERROR:  cannot cast type int8range to int8multirange
> LINE 1: select int8range(10,15)::int8multirange;
>                                ^
> There should be some a) fully generic solution, or b) possibility to
> build implicit cast when any multirange type is created.

Okay, I like the idea of just having `range + range` and `multirange +
multirange`, then letting you cast between ranges and multiranges. The
analogy to int/numeric seems strong. I guess if you cast a multirange
with more than one element to a range it will raise an error. That will
let me clean up the docs a lot too.

Thanks!

--
Paul ~{:-)
pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com