Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 00:07:04 +0200
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: range_agg
Message-ID: <20190506220703.GG28936@fetter.org>
References: <16d71dc8-34cf-5ebd-1ce5-ccd93c0a14f9@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <20190504014147.GC28936@fetter.org>
 <16a2d956-f9da-6bed-6473-de9d1ec0a428@illuminatedcomputing.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16a2d956-f9da-6bed-6473-de9d1ec0a428@illuminatedcomputing.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:19:27AM -0700, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> On 5/3/19 6:41 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > This suggests two different ways to extend ranges over aggregation:
> > one which is a union of (in general) disjoint intervals, two others
> > are a union of intervals, each of which has a weight.
> > . . .
> > I think the cases above, or at least the first two of them, should be
> > available. They could be called range_agg, weighted_range_agg, and
> > covering_range_agg.
> 
> Thanks David! I think these two new functions make sense. Before I implement
> them too I wonder if anyone else has uses for them?

I suspect that if you build it, the will come, "they" being anyone who
has to schedule coverage, check usage of a resource over time, etc. Is
this something you want help with at some level? Coding, testing,
promoting...

Best,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate