Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation
Дата
Msg-id 9123.1321887315@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>> Well, if there were a good shorter notation, then probably so. But it
>> doesn't look like we have a good idea, so I'm fine with dropping it.

> We should also keep in mind that people who use range types can and likely will define their own convenience
functions. If people use singletons, or open ranges, or closed ranges, or one-hour timestamp ranges frequently, they
canmake their own notational shorthand with a 3-line CREATE FUNCTION statement.  We don't need to have it all in core.
 

But if you believe that, what syntax do you think people are likely to
try if they want a singleton range constructor?  Leaving the user to
discover the problem and try to invent a workaround is not better than
doing it ourselves ...
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message
Следующее
От: Merlin Moncure
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays