Re: Range Types: empty ranges

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 15:14 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > Well, there is a certain amount of localized clarity, I will agree with
> > that. The complexity comes when you accidentally rely on some
> > transformation which seems logically sound, but could result in a
> > transient empty range, which then throws an error.
> 
> But by this argument you also need to support discontiguous ranges, don't you?
> 
> I mean, if you want to insist that A intersect B has to still be a
> legal range, what about A union B?
> 

I responded to a similar question/point here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg01073.php

Regards,Jeff Davis