On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:21:49AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 06:59:34PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Put me in the camp that says you need both. I really seriously > >> dislike the idea of representing [1, 2) as [1, 2-epsilon], mainly > >> because there is often no portable value for epsilon. > >> Dump-and-restore would be quite hazardous. > > > It wouldn't be stored as (1, 2-epsilon). It would be stored more > > like (1, 2, closed, open). > > Fine ... > > > If you have a coherent, worked-out theory of continuous ranges, > > please feel free to develop and publish it just as Snodgrass, et > > al., have done with discrete ranges, but please *don't* feel free > > to assume that you can just wave a magic wand and make continuous > > time ranges "just work" because it pleases you aesthetically. > > That is FUD, and nothing more. If you know a concrete reason why > Postgres shouldn't provide both closed and open ranges, you need to > explain it, not claim that there might be a reason someplace and > it's someone else's problem to prove your point for you.
That you're confusing the open/closed ranges with discrete/continuous tells me that it's *you* who doesn't understand the issues at hand. If you can present or develop a coherent theory of continuous ranges, that's great. If you can present or develop a theory that merges that one with discrete ranges, that's great too. Until then, let's get the discrete ranges going and disallow ones based on the continuum, i.e. floats. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers