On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 9:01:41 PM UTC-7, Chris Riddoch wrote: > > Having thought a bit more about exactly what I'm trying to accomplish, > you're right that I don't need infinite timestamp values. It somehow struck > me as an incompleteness of some sort, which caused me to get distracted > from my original goals. > > Now that I've reread this part of the postgres documentation (it had been > long enough I forgot important details), the reasoning behind the behavior > of nulls in the input of a timestamp range makes a lot more sense to me... > and while I do have a use case for cover?, it's not one where a bounded > infinite time range would be useful in place of unbounded... so it even > seems possible I might not actually need cover? implemented separately on > the PGRange to begin with. As for the DateTime conversion, I'm definitely > less confident now that it wasn't a problem of my own making somehow. > > Thanks for the focus. >
I'm still thinking that manually defining cover? would be a good thing, as it currently doesn't work for empty ranges, unbounded ranges on either end, or ranges with an exclusive beginning. I'll try to implement that before the next release. Thanks, Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
