Re: range_agg

David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> There's another use case not yet covered here that could make this
> even more complex, we should probably plan for it: multi-ranges with
> weights.

I'm inclined to reject that as completely out of scope.  The core
argument for unifying multiranges with ranges, if you ask me, is
to make the data type closed under union.  Weights are from some
other universe.

            regards, tom lane