Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor
От | Florian Pflug |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 35BA2861-3B0D-49DD-ADFD-855B23E1D628@phlo.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor
Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: