2011/11/19 Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com>: > On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> The singleton range constructors don't work terribly well. > ... > >> I don't immediately see a solution that's better than dropping the >> single-argument range constructors. > > We could change the name, I suppose, but that seems awkward. I'm > hesitant to remove them because the alternative is significantly more > verbose: > > numrange(1.0, 1.0, '[]');
one parameter range should be confusing. Single parameter range constructors is useless Regards Pavel > > But I don't have any particularly good ideas to save them, either. > > Regarding the zero-argument (empty) constructors, I'd be fine removing > them. They don't seem to cause problems, but the utility is also very > minor. > > 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 > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers