Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > On 2021-Jun-19, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd say let's sit on the unnest code for a little bit and see what >> happens.
> ... So, almost a month has gone by, and we still don't have multirange > unnest(). Looking at the open items list, it doesn't look like we have > anything that would require a catversion bump. Does that mean that > we're going to ship pg14 without multirange unnest? > That seems pretty sad, as the usability of the feature is greatly > reduced. Just look at what's being suggested: > https://postgr.es/m/20210715121508.ga30...@depesz.com > To me this screams of an incomplete datatype. I far prefer a beta3 > initdb than shipping 14GA without multirange unnest. Yeah, that seems pretty horrid. I still don't like the way the array casts were done, but I'd be okay with pushing the unnest addition. regards, tom lane
