Re: range_agg

út 9. 7. 2019 v 20:25 odesílatel Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> napsal:

> On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 07:08 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> > I am not against a multirange type, but I miss a explanation why you
> > introduce new kind of types and don't use just array of ranges.
> >
> > Introduction of new kind of types is not like introduction new type.
>
> The biggest benefit, in my opinion, is that it means you can define
> functions/operators that take an "anyrange" and return an
> "anymultirange". That way you don't have to define different functions
> for int4 ranges, date ranges, etc.
>
>
I am not sure how strong is this argument.

I think so introduction of anyrangearray polymorphic type and enhancing
some type deduction can do same work.

It starts to get even more complex when you want to add opclasses, etc.
>
> Ranges and arrays are effectively generic types that need a type
> parameter to become a concrete type. Ideally, we'd have first-class
> support for generic types, but I think that's a different topic ;-)

I afraid so with generic multiragetype there lot of array infrastructure
will be duplicated

Regards

Pavel

> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
>