| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |