Re: pg_stats and range statistics

On 3/20/23 20:54, Egor Rogov wrote:
> On 20.03.2023 22:27, Gregory Stark (as CFM) wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 18:22, Tomas Vondra
>> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I wonder if we have other functions doing something similar, i.e.
>>> accepting a polymorphic type and then imposing additional restrictions
>>> on it.
>> Meh, there's things like array comparison functions that require both
>> arguments to be the same kind of arrays. And array_agg that requires
>> the elements to be the same type as the state array (ie, same type as
>> the first element). Not sure there are any taking just one specific
>> type though.
>>
>>>> Shouldn't this add some sql tests ?
>>> Yeah, I guess we should have a couple tests calling these functions on
>>> different range arrays.
>>>
>>> This reminds me lower()/upper() have some extra rules about handling
>>> empty ranges / infinite boundaries etc. These functions should behave
>>> consistently (as if we called lower() in a loop) and I'm pretty sure
>>> that's not the current state.
>> Are we still waiting on these two items? Egor, do you think you'll
>> have a chance to work it for this month?
>
>
> I can try to tidy things up, but I'm not sure if we reached a consensus.
>

We don't have any objections, and that's probably the best consensus we
can get here, I guess ...

So if you could clean it up a bit, and do something about the two open
items I mentioned (a bunch of tests on different array, and behavior
consistent with lower/upper), that'd be great.

> Do we stick with the ranges_upper(anyarray) and ranges_lower(anyarray)
> functions? This approach is okay with me. Tomas, have you made up your
> mind?
>

I think the function approach is fine, but in my January 22 message I
was wondering why we're not actually naming them simply lower/upper.

> Do we want to document these functions? They are very
> pg_statistic-specific and won't be useful for end users imo.
>

I don't see why not to document them. Sure, we're using them in a fairly
specific context, but I don't see why not to let people use them too
(which would be hard without docs).

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company