On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 00:26 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> Maybe that check should just be removed? If one views the range
> '[L, U)' as a concise way of expressing "L <= x AND x < U" for some
> x, then allowing the case L > U seems quite natural. There won't
> be any such x of course, but the range is still valid, just empty.
[ Please excuse the late reply, I was on vacation. ]
That's an interesting perspective, but I don't think it's a good idea.
Up to this point, I've considered a range value to be a set of
contiguous values, and the endpoints just happen to be a way to
represent that set. If changing the collation changes a set of positive
cardinality into an empty set, clearly it's a different value.
We don't want the COLLATE clause to change the value, because things
that do change the value (like a typecast) should offer the opportunity
to call a function so that you can verify that it's valid or change it
to some canonical form.
So, I believe that you are proposing to change the concept of a range
value from "a contiguous set of values" to "a pair of bounds". There are
numerous implications, one of which is that I don't think that we can
maintain the equality of all empty ranges. Consider these expressions,
where x is a non-empty range with collation "A", but is empty in
collation "B" (and "*" means "range intersection"):
(x COLLATE "B") COLLATE "A"
((x COLLATE "B") * '(-Inf, Inf)') COLLATE "A"
('-'::textrange * '(-Inf, Inf)') COLLATE "A"
All of those expressions should be equal (according to global
substitutibility, as Darren mentioned). But they can't be, because the
last expression is always an empty range, whereas the first one is not
(because merely changing the collation back and forth offers no
opportunity to even notice that you have an empty range at one point).
So, I believe that we'd be stuck with non-equal empty ranges, as well as
many other possibly non-intuitive implications.
So, I lean strongly toward the interpretation that a range is a
contiguous set of values, and changing the collation should not change
the value. Things that do change the value (like a typecast) should
offer the opportunity to handle cases like this with a function call,
but changing collation does not.
This leaves making the collation a part of the range type itself (as
Robert suggested).
Comments?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
