On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: > > I can't think of any reason you'd want two different range types on a > > single element type. > > We would not have built it that way if there were not clear use-cases. > An easy example is you might want both a continuous timestamp range > and one that is quantized to hour boundaries. Primarily what the > range type brings in besides the element type is a canonicalization > function; and we can't guess which one you want. > > 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 > Jim, I wrote a routine that fishes in the dictionary for a suitable range type: https://github.com/moat/range_partitioning/blob/master/sql/range_partitioning.sql#L459-L485 Obviously, it has the problems when the number of suitable ranges <> 1 as mentioned by Tom. You might also find some gleanable gems in: https://github.com/moat/range_type_functions/blob/master/doc/range_type_functions.md
