On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > This might solve the constructor problem nicely if we could do things > like: > RANGE[10,20) > But I have a feeling that will either cause a bizarre problem with the > grammar, or someone will think it's not very SQL-like.
I think won't cause any problem at all if RANGE is fully reserved, but like you say we probably don't want to do that unless it's absolutely necessary, and if you don't actually need to be able to type in foo RANGE JOIN bar then it probably isn't. I think your proposed naming schema for constructors is pretty reasonable, except I might use "o" for open and "c" for closed rather than "i" and "_", i.e. range_oo(), range_oc(), range_co(), range_cc(). If that'll get us by without fully reserving RANGE then I'd certainly be in favor of doing it that way. I was just saying - if we were inevitably going to have to reserve RANGE, then we could try to squeeze a little more out of it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
