On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 6:47 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
I agree that array casts require better polymorphism and should be considered for pg15. +1 for just unnest(). ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
