On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Right now it's #3, and I lean pretty strongly toward keeping it. Without
> #3, people will get confused when fairly simple operations fail in a
> data-dependent way (at runtime). With #3, people will run into problems
> only in situations where
On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 08:37 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Where are we on this?
The options are:
1. Rip out empty ranges. Several people have been skeptical of their
usefulness, but I don't recall anyone directly saying that they should
be removed. Robert Haas made the point that range types aren
Where are we on this?
---
Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On Wed, February 9, 2011 09:35, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Updated patch.
> >
>
> The operators << >> and -|- have the following behavior with empty ranges:
>
> testdb=# selec
Josh Berkus wrote:
> I can imagine using all of these constructs in actual
> applications.
But which of them, if any, is an "empty range"?
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/p
On Fri, February 11, 2011 19:02, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> "empty range"
>> =
>> Zero length?
>> If so, is it fixed at some point, but empty?
>> '(x,x)'?
>> '[x,x)'?
>
> Neither of the above should be possible, I think. The expression "(x"
> logically excludes the expression "x
> "empty range"
> =
> Zero length?
> If so, is it fixed at some point, but empty?
> '(x,x)'?
> '[x,x)'?
Neither of the above should be possible, I think. The expression "(x"
logically excludes the expression "x)".
However, "[x,x]" would be valid, and would be a zero-length
On 02/11/2011 12:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 12:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
For what it's worth, my completely uninformed opinion is that
comparison operators shouldn't error out. I haven't read the patch so
I'm not su
Jeff Davis wrote:
> ">>" means "strictly right of"
> "<<" means "strictly left of"
> "-|-" means "adjacent" (touching but not overlapping)
>
> I'm open to suggestion about how those behave with empty ranges.
OK, that still leaves a lot to the imagination, though. To try to
clarify in *my* mi
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 12:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> For what it's worth, my completely uninformed opinion is that
>> comparison operators shouldn't error out. I haven't read the patch so
>> I'm not sure what those operators are defined to
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 12:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> For what it's worth, my completely uninformed opinion is that
> comparison operators shouldn't error out. I haven't read the patch so
> I'm not sure what those operators are defined to do, though.
">>" means "strictly right of"
"<<" means "s
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 15:09 +0100, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> On Wed, February 9, 2011 09:35, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> > Updated patch.
>> >
>>
>> The operators << >> and -|- have the following behavior with empty
>> ranges:
>>
>> testdb=# select
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 15:09 +0100, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> On Wed, February 9, 2011 09:35, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Updated patch.
> >
>
> The operators << >> and -|- have the following behavior with empty ranges:
>
> testdb=# select '-'::int4range << range(200,300);
> ERROR: empty range
> testdb
On Wed, February 9, 2011 09:35, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Updated patch.
>
The operators << >> and -|- have the following behavior with empty ranges:
testdb=# select '-'::int4range << range(200,300);
ERROR: empty range
testdb=# select '-'::int4range >> range(200,300);
ERROR: empty range
testdb=#
13 matches
Mail list logo
