Jeff Davis writes:
> It's a little strange that we allow people to define functions with one
> argument and the same name as a type if such functions are confusing.
As long as your mental model is that such a function is a cast,
everything is fine. The trouble with the range constructors is that
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 09:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I honestly don't know what function names people will pick, and I
> don't care. Someone might like singleton(x), which would be
> impractical as a built-in because there could be more than one range
> type over the same base type, but if the
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> We should also keep in
On 21 November 2011 14:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> We should also keep in mind
Robert Haas writes:
> On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> 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.
> We should also keep in mind that people who use range types can and likely
> w
On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> 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 enoug
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.
W
On Nov19, 2011, at 21:57 , Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 c
Jeff Davis 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
2011/11/19 Jeff Davis :
> 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, bu
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
The singleton range constructors don't work terribly well.
regression=# select int4range(42); -- ok
int4range
---
[42,43)
(1 row)
regression=# select int4range(null);-- not so ok
int4range
---
(1 row)
regression=# select int4range('42');
12 matches
Mail list logo
