On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:20:05PM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > 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...
You're making a persuasive argument for the latter based solely on the clarity. If people see that 3rd element in the DDL, or need to provide it, it's *very* obvious what's going on. Cheers, David (who suspects that having a syntax like somerange[a,b) just won't work with the current state of parsers, etc.) -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers