On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 15:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > 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.
Well, if there were a good shorter notation, then probably so. But it doesn't look like we have a good idea, so I'm fine with dropping it. > 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. I think we had that discussion before, and Florian brought up some good points (both then and in a reply now). Also, Robert wasn't convinced that '[]' is necessarily better for discrete ranges: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-10/msg00598.php 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
