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
