From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: range_agg
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 16:20:58 -0500
Message-ID: <16397.1583616058@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15764.1583615192@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20200304022849.GA5402@alvherre.pgsql>
<13800.1583612399@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<15764.1583615192@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I wrote:
> Actually ... have you given any thought to just deciding that ranges and
> multiranges are the same type? That is, any range can now potentially
> contain multiple segments? That would eliminate a whole lot of the
> tedious infrastructure hacking involved in this patch, and let you focus
> on the actually-useful functionality.
Also, this would allow us to remove at least one ugly misfeature:
regression=# select '[1,2]'::int4range + '[3,10)'::int4range;
?column?
----------
[1,10)
(1 row)
regression=# select '[1,2]'::int4range + '[4,10)'::int4range;
ERROR: result of range union would not be contiguous
If the result of range_union can be a multirange as easily as not,
we would no longer have to throw an error here.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pj@illuminatedcomputing.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pavel.stehule@gmail.com, pgsql@j-davis.com
Subject: Re: range_agg
In-Reply-To: <16397.1583616058@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox