On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 06:28 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>> > 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...
>>
>> You're making a persuasive argument for the latter based solely on the
>> clarity. If people see that 3rd element in the DDL, or need to
>> provide it, it's *very* obvious what's going on.
>
> That was how I originally thought, but we're also providing built-in
> range types like tsrange and daterange. I could see how if the former
> excluded the endpoint and the latter included it, it could be confusing.
>
> We could go back to having different constructor names for different
> inclusivity; e.g. int4range_cc(1,10). That at least removes the
> awkwardness of typing (and seeing) '[]'.
The cure seems worse than the disease. What is so bad about '[]'?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company