On Oct11, 2011, at 14:43 , David Fetter wrote: > I'd recoil at not having ranges default to left-closed, right-open. > The use case for that one is so compelling that I'm OK with making it > the default from which deviations need to be specified.
The downside of that is that, as Tom pointed out upthread, we cannot make [) the canonical representation of ranges. It'd require us to increment the right boundary of a closed range, but that incremented boundary might no longer be in the base type's domain. So we'd end up with [) being the default for range construction, but [] being the canonical representation, i.e. what you get back when SELECTing a range (over a discrete base type). Certainly not the end of the world, but is the convenience of being able to write somerange(a, b) instead of somerange(a, b, '[)') really worth it? I kind of doubt that... best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
