On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 06:28 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> > Certainly not the end of the world, but is the convenience of being
> > able to write somerange(a, b) instead of somerange(a, b, '[)')
> > really worth it? I kind of doubt that...
>
> You're making a persuasive argument for the latter based solely on the
> clarity. If people see that 3rd element in the DDL, or need to
> provide it, it's *very* obvious what's going on.
That was how I originally thought, but we're also providing built-in
range types like tsrange and daterange. I could see how if the former
excluded the endpoint and the latter included it, it could be confusing.
We could go back to having different constructor names for different
inclusivity; e.g. int4range_cc(1,10). That at least removes the
awkwardness of typing (and seeing) '[]'.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
