On Feb 10, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It will certainly mess up syntax highlighting and matching bracket detection
>> in pretty much all text editors...
>
> Yeah. It's a cute-looking notation but surely it will cause many more
> problems than it's worth. I agree with Robert's suggest
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> This might solve the constructor problem nicely if we could do things
> like:
> RANGE[10,20)
> But I have a feeling that will either cause a bizarre problem with the
> grammar, or someone will think it's not very SQL-like.
I like it a lot better
Florian Pflug writes:
>> This might solve the constructor problem nicely if we could do things
>> like:
>> RANGE[10,20)
>> But I have a feeling that will either cause a bizarre problem with the
>> grammar, or someone will think it's not very SQL-like.
> It will certainly mess up syntax highlighti
> This might solve the constructor problem nicely if we could do things
> like:
> RANGE[10,20)
> But I have a feeling that will either cause a bizarre problem with the
> grammar, or someone will think it's not very SQL-like.
It will certainly mess up syntax highlighting and matching bracket dete
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> This might solve the constructor problem nicely if we could do things
> like:
> RANGE[10,20)
> But I have a feeling that will either cause a bizarre problem with the
> grammar, or someone will think it's not very SQL-like.
I think won't cause
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 13:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> According to our documentation[1], RANGE is reserved in SQL:2008 and
> SQL:2003, which makes it more imaginable to reserve it than it would
> be otherwise.
Oh, interesting.
> I believe that in a previous email you mentioned that
> you were h
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> That's how arrays do it: there's a special Expr node that represents an
> array expression. Maybe the same thing could be used for range types,
> but I fear that there may be some grammar conflicts. I doubt we'd want
> to fully reserve the keywor
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 15:39 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 14:50, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > 1.
> > The obvious constructor would be:
> > range(1, 10)
> > But is that [1, 10), (1, 10], (1, 10), or [1, 10]? We need to support
> > all 4, and it's not obvious how to do that easil
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 14:50, Jeff Davis wrote:
> 1.
> The obvious constructor would be:
> range(1, 10)
> But is that [1, 10), (1, 10], (1, 10), or [1, 10]? We need to support
> all 4, and it's not obvious how to do that easily.
here is the same issue in table partitioning. Also, We might use th
There are two issues I'd like to discuss related to constructing range
types from other values.
1.
The obvious constructor would be:
range(1, 10)
But is that [1, 10), (1, 10], (1, 10), or [1, 10]? We need to support
all 4, and it's not obvious how to do that easily. The solution that I
came up
10 matches
Mail list logo
