Re: Range Types and extensions

From: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Range Types and extensions
Date: 2011-06-12 11:53:08
Message-ID: 73795993-273D-4C15-86C2-BCDFFC255A0F@phlo.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jun12, 2011, at 04:37 , Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
>> On Jun8, 2011, at 17:46 , Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> It looks like the type input function may be a problem, because it
>>> doesn't look like it knows what the collation is yet. In other words,
>>> PG_GET_COLLATION() is zero for the type input function.
>>>
>>> But I need to do a comparison to find out if the range is valid or not.
>>> For instance:
>>> '[a, Z)'::textrange
>>> is valid in "en_US" but not "C".
>>
>> Maybe that check should just be removed? If one views the range
>> '[L, U)' as a concise way of expressing "L <= x AND x < U" for some
>> x, then allowing the case L > U seems quite natural. There won't
>> be any such x of course, but the range is still valid, just empty.
>>
>> Actually, thinking for this a bit, I believe this is the only
>> way text ranges can support collations. If the validity of a range
>> depends on the collation, then changing the collation after creation
>> seems weird, since it can make previous valid ranges invalid and
>> vice versa.
>>
>> There could be a function RANGE_EMPTY() which people can put into
>> their CHECK constraints if they don't want such ranges to sneak
>> into their tables...
>
> I think the collation is going to have to be baked into the type
> definition, no? You can't just up and change the collation of the
> column as you could for a straight text column, if that might cause
> the contents of some rows to be viewed as invalid.

Now you've lost me. If a text range is simply a pair of strings,
as I suggested, and collations are applied only during comparison
and RANGE_EMPTY(), why would the collation have to be baked into
the type?

If you're referring to the case
(1) Create table with text-range column and collation C1
(2) Add check constraint containing RANGE_EMPTY()
(3) Add data
(4) Alter column to have collation C2, possibly changing
the result of RANGE_EMPTY() for existing ranges.
then that points to a problem with ALTER COLUMN.

best regards,
Florian Pflug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Pflug 2011-06-12 12:40:06 Re: pg_trgm: unicode string not working
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2011-06-12 11:46:08 Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY