Re: SQL:2011 application time

From: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: 2024-09-05 13:45:44
Message-ID: CA+renyXfQPw+L5YWuWKmxSFG_Q6yE+PpOeH05WUzut4td_ZgnQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 5:09 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 07.08.24 22:54, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> > Here are some fixes based on outstanding feedback (some old some new).
>
> I have studied your patches v39-0001 through v39-0004, which correspond
> to what had been reverted plus the new empty range check plus various
> minor fixes. This looks good to me now, so I propose to go ahead with that.

Sounds good. Thanks!

> Btw., in your 0003 you point out that this prevents using the WITHOUT
> OVERLAPS functionality for non-range types. But I think this could be
> accomplished by adding an "is empty" callback as a support function or
> something like that. I'm not suggesting to do that here, but it might
> be worth leaving a comment about that possibility.

Yes, I was thinking the same. Agreed as well: it should be a follow-up
patch, not needed for the base functionality. If we wanted a more
generic name it could be "canWithoutOverlap" instead of "[!]isempty",
but even "isempty" is probably still completely accurate.

Yours,

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message jian he 2024-09-05 13:50:26 ATExecColumnDefault comments
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2024-09-05 13:43:30 Re: Create syscaches for pg_extension