> "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.)
OK, I'll go for the whole change - just expect lots of questions :)
Chris