On Jan 28, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 09:17 -0800, David Fetter wrote: >> For consistency, and in order not to continue our atrocious naming >> tradition, I'd like to propose that the above be named timestamprange >> (tsrange for short) and timestamptzrange (tstzrange for short). > > No real objection, but I'd like to see if someone else will second it.
+1 in principal. I think we should try to avoid the user of the term "period" if possible, and I see definite benefits to a simple model of $typename . 'range'; > Keep in mind that it's fairly easy for people to add their own range > types. The most difficult part is defining the "canonical" function if > it is applicable, and the "subtype_float" function which is necessary > for GiST. Is there GIN support? GIN seems to be the preferred index type for this sort of thing, no? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
