Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 12:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
Yeah, something like int4range_1(42) would work, but it seems rather
ugly.
> I'm hesitant to remove them because the alternative is significantly
> more verbose:
> numrange(1.0, 1.0, '[]');
Right. The question is, does the case occur in practice often enough
to justify a shorter notation? I'm not sure.
One thing I've been thinking for a bit is that for discrete ranges,
I find the '[)' canonical form to be surprising/confusing. If we
were to fix range_adjacent along the lines suggested by Florian,
would it be practical to go over to '[]' as the canonical form?
One good thing about that approach is that canonicalization wouldn't
have to involve generating values that might overflow.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
