On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 06:28 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > Certainly not the end of the world, but is the convenience of being > > able to write somerange(a, b) instead of somerange(a, b, '[)') > > really worth it? I kind of doubt that... > > You're making a persuasive argument for the latter based solely on the > clarity. If people see that 3rd element in the DDL, or need to > provide it, it's *very* obvious what's going on.
That was how I originally thought, but we're also providing built-in range types like tsrange and daterange. I could see how if the former excluded the endpoint and the latter included it, it could be confusing. We could go back to having different constructor names for different inclusivity; e.g. int4range_cc(1,10). That at least removes the awkwardness of typing (and seeing) ''. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers