On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > Right now it's #3, and I lean pretty strongly toward keeping it. Without > #3, people will get confused when fairly simple operations fail in a > data-dependent way (at runtime). With #3, people will run into problems > only in situations where it is fairly dubious to have an empty range > anyway (and therefore likely a real error), such as finding ranges "left > of" an empty range.
That seems pretty apropos to me. > Otherwise, I'd prefer #1 to #2. I think #2 is a bad path to take, and > we'll end up with a lot of unintuitive and error-prone operators. I think back to your essay on the nonintuitiveness of NULL (<http://thoughts.j-davis.com/2009/08/02/what-is-the-deal-with-nulls/>), and suggest the thought that picking #2 would add to the already existent confusion. -- http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
