On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I also have to say that I'm very skeptical of the argument >> that there is only a small list of types people will want this for. > > I'm not sure that anyone has argued that. I did suggest that there > might be a small list of types for which we should provide discrete > behavior (ie, with next/previous functions) and the rest could have > continuous behavior (without that assumption). But I quite agree > that we want both types of ranges.
Oh, I think you're right. I guess I'm skeptical that the set for which discrete treatment is appropriate is a small, fixed set, too. Unless hard-coding that assumption buys us some really significant economies, I think we should avoid doing so. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
