"Joel Jacobson" <[email protected]> writes:
> As discussed in the separate thread "[PATCH] regexp_positions ( string text,
> pattern text, flags text ) → setof int4range[]" [1]
> it's currently not possible to create an empty range with bounds information.
> This patch tries to improve the situation by keeping the bounds information,
> and allow accessing it via lower() and upper().
I think this is an actively bad idea. We had a clean set-theoretic
definition of ranges as sets of points, and with this we would not.
We should not be whacking around the fundamental semantics of a
whole class of data types on the basis that it'd be cute to make
regexp_position return its result as int4range rather than int[].
If we did go forward with this, what would the implications be for
multiranges?
regards, tom lane
