Horton

Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor

Florian G. Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>

View thread
From: Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-10-11T13:20:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Replace the "New Linear" GiST split algorithm for boxes and points with a

On Oct11, 2011, at 14:43 , David Fetter wrote:
> I'd recoil at not having ranges default to left-closed, right-open.
> The use case for that one is so compelling that I'm OK with making it
> the default from which deviations need to be specified.

The downside of that is that, as Tom pointed out upthread, we cannot
make [) the canonical representation of ranges. It'd require us to
increment the right boundary of a closed range, but that incremented
boundary might no longer be in the base type's domain.

So we'd end up with [) being the default for range construction,
but [] being the canonical representation, i.e. what you get back
when SELECTing a range (over a discrete base type).

Certainly not the end of the world, but is the convenience of being
able to write somerange(a, b) instead of somerange(a, b, '[)') really
worth it? I kind of doubt that...

best regards,
Florian Pflug