Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1309500544.10707.162.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Range Types, constructors, and the type system
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 12:28 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > Well, arrays are containers, and we need two values to construct a range, What about empty ranges? What about infinite ranges? It seems quite a bit more awkward to shoehorn ranges into an array than to use a real type (even if it's intermediate and otherwise useless). > Hm, I guess. I'm sill no huge fan of RANGEINPUT, but if we prevent > it from being used as a column type and from being used as an argument > type, then I guess it's workable... > > Btw, what happened to the idea of making RANGE(...) a special syntactic > construct instead of a normal function call? Did we discard that for its > intrusiveness, or were there other reasons? It has not been discarded; as far as I'm concerned it's still on the table. The main advantage is that it doesn't require an intermediate type, and that requiring a cast (or some specification of the range type) might be a little more natural. The downside is that, well, it's new syntax, and there's a little inertia there. But if it's actually better, we should do it. If an intermediate type seems to be problematic, or if people think it's strange to require casting, then I think this is reasonable. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: