Re: range_agg
От | Paul Jungwirth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: range_agg |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ab15963e-8827-2760-f415-f22f6e404c2a@illuminatedcomputing.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: range_agg (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: range_agg
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> I suspect that if you build it, the will come, "they" being anyone who > has to schedule coverage, check usage of a resource over time, etc. Is > this something you want help with at some level? Coding, testing, > promoting... You might be right. :-) Most of this is done already, since it was largely copy/paste from my extension plus figuring out how to register built-in functions with the .dat files. I need to write some docs and do some cleanup and I'll have a CF entry. And I'll probably go ahead and add your two suggestions too.... Things I'd love help with: - Getting more opinions about the functions' interface, either from you or others, especially: - In the extension I have a boolean param to let you accept gaps or raise an error, and another for overlaps. But what about accepting/raising/returning null? How should the parameters expose that? Maybe leave them as bools but accept true/false/null for permit/raise/nullify respectively? That seems like a questionable UI, but I'm not sure what would be better. Maybe someone with better taste can weigh in. :-) I tried to find existing built-in functions that gave a enumeration of options like that but couldn't find an existing example. - Also: what do you think of the question I asked in my reply to Corey? Is it better to have *all* range_agg functions return an array of ranges, or it is nicer to have a variant that always returns a single range? - Getting it reviewed. - Advice about sequencing it with respect to my temporal foreign keys patch, where I'm planning to call range_agg to check an FK. E.g. should my FK patch be a diff on top of the range_agg code? I assume they should have separate CF entries though? Oh and here's something specific: - I gave oids to my new functions starting with 8000, because I thought I saw some discussion about that recently, and the final committer will correct the oids to the current n+1? But I can't find that discussion anymore, so if that's the wrong approach let me know. Thanks! -- Paul ~{:-) pj@illuminatedcomputing.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: