From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Range Types and extensions |
Date: | 2011-06-06 16:28:05 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTimKR_=yaN8vLWocoK5j4FYZenL-zQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/6/6 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 06:56 +0200, 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
>
> Oh, good idea. It would only work for discrete ranges though.
>
> However, I would need to somehow reintroduce the concept of "next",
> which has some hazards to it (as Tom pointed out, we don't want someone
> to define the "next" for a float to be "+1.0"). I'll have to think about
> this.
we can define a step
FOREACH x IN RANGE ..... BY ....
LOOP
END LOOP
Regards
Pavel
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-06 16:30:25 | Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-06-06 16:26:46 | Re: Range Types and extensions |