On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 22:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> * The underlying range_serialize function is only exposed at the C
> level. If you try to write something in, say, plpgsql then you are
> going to end up going through range_constructorN or range_in to produce
> your result value, and those call
On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Now you could argue that for performance reasons everybody should write
> their canonicalization functions in C anyway, but I'm not sure I buy
> that --- at the very least, it'd be nice to write the functions in
> something higher-level while prototy
On Nov24, 2011, at 04:33 , Tom Lane wrote:
> One possibility that just came to me is to decree that every discrete
> range type has to be based on an underlying continuous range type (with
> all the same properties except no canonicalization function), and then
> the discrete range's canonicalizati
I got religion this evening about the potential usefulness of
user-defined canonicalization functions --- the example that did it for
me was thinking about a range type over timestamp that quantizes
boundaries to hours, or half hours, or 15 minutes, or any scheduling
unit that is standard in a part
