From: | Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: range_agg |
Date: | 2019-09-22 04:50:55 |
Message-ID: | CA+renyWOSQ5P-=KCqti4WN1hdS9h9O5kFSvXqodq49XaR43HkA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:52 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 10:45 -0700, Paul A Jungwirth wrote:
> > Right now I'm planning to do all that before sending a patch. I'm
> > happy to send something something in-progress too, but I don't want
> > to
> > waste any reviewers' time. If folks want an early peak though let me
> > know. (You can also find my messy progress at
> > https://github.com/pjungwir/postgresql/tree/multirange)
>
> Sounds good. The rule I use is: "will the feedback I get be helpful, or
> just tell me about obvious problems I already know about".
Here are some patches to add multiranges. I tried to split things up a
bit but most things landed in parts 1 & 2.
Things I haven't done (but would be interested in doing or getting help with):
- gist opclass
- spgist opclass
- typanalyze
- selectivity
- anyrangearray
- anymultirangearray?
- UNNEST for multirange and/or a way to convert it to an array
- indexing/subscripting (see patch for standardized subscripting)
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v3-0003-multirange-pg_dump.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.6 KB |
v3-0004-multirange-docs.patch | application/octet-stream | 25.4 KB |
v3-0001-multirange-type-basics.patch | application/octet-stream | 141.0 KB |
v3-0002-multirange-operators-and-functions.patch | application/octet-stream | 164.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-09-22 05:07:52 | Re: pgbench - allow to create partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-21 22:03:26 | Re: Avoiding possible future conformance headaches in JSON work |