From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: unnesting multirange data types |
Date: | 2021-06-14 13:14:40 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdtiOC530UM1X6j_o8EKPmWhN1fsNzp4dG7areLMeXp5JA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 3:50 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> On 6/13/21 5:18 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> >> "Expands an array into a set of rows. The array's elements are read out
> >> in storage order."
> >>
> >> If we tweaked the multirange "unnest" function, we could change it to:
> >>
> >> + <para>
> >> + Expands a multirange into a set of rows.
> >> + The ranges are read out in storage order (ascending).
> >> + </para>
> >>
> >> to match what the array "unnest" function docs, or
> >>
> >> + <para>
> >> + Expands a multirange into a set of rows that each
> >> + contain an individual range.
> >> + The ranges are read out in storage order (ascending).
> >> + </para>
> >>
> >> to be a bit more specific. However, I think this is also bordering on
> >> overengineering the text, given there has been a lack of feedback on the
> >> "unnest" array function description being confusing.
> >
> > I think it's not necessarily to say about rows here. Our
> > documentation already has already a number of examples, where we
> > describe set of returned values without speaking about rows including:
> > json_array_elements, json_array_elements_text, json_object_keys,
> > pg_listening_channels, pg_tablespace_databases...
>
> I do agree -- my main point was that I don't think we need to change
> anything. I proposed alternatives just to show some other ways of
> looking at it. But as I mentioned, at this point I think it's
> overengineering the text.
>
> If folks are good with the method + code, I think this is ready.
Cool, thank you for the summary. I'll wait for two days since I've
published the last revision of the patch [1] (comes tomorrow), and
push it if no new issues arise.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-06-14 13:21:30 | pg_dumpall --exclude-database case folding, was Re: AWS forcing PG upgrade from v9.6 a disaster |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-06-14 12:56:15 | Re: contrib/pg_visibility fails regression under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS |