"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> So should I go ahead and submit a patch for BETWEEN that adds SYMMETRY
> support in the old-style code, and then at a later stage submit a patch that
> makes BETWEEN a proper node?
I'd prefer to do it in one step. I have not noticed any large
groundswell of demand for BETWEEN SYMMETRIC ... so I don't see a good
reason for implementing a stopgap version. (It would be a stopgap
mainly because the planner wouldn't recognize it as a range query.)
regards, tom lane