Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 10:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would it be better for them to silently transform such cases to "empty"?
> I wouldn't like to extend that to int4range(4,3), however. When the
> upper bound is less than the lower bound, it's almost certainly a
> mistake, and the user should be informed.
Yeah, probably not. However, I don't like the idea of
'(3,4)'::int4range throwing an error, as it currently does, because it
seems to require the application to have quite a lot of knowledge of the
range semantics to avoid having errors sprung on it.
> By the way, what does this have to do with canonical functions? This
> seems more like a constructor issue, and there is already a
> zero-argument constructor to make empty ranges.
What I was concerned about was whether Florian's idea of implementing
range_adjacent by testing for empty intervening range would work, or
would fail because of errors getting thrown.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
