Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Jun-19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd say let's sit on the unnest code for a little bit and see what
>> happens.
> ... So, almost a month has gone by, and we still don't have multirange
> unnest(). Looking at the open items list, it doesn't look like we have
> anything that would require a catversion bump. Does that mean that
> we're going to ship pg14 without multirange unnest?
> That seems pretty sad, as the usability of the feature is greatly
> reduced. Just look at what's being suggested:
> https://postgr.es/m/20210715121508.GA30348@depesz.com
> To me this screams of an incomplete datatype. I far prefer a beta3
> initdb than shipping 14GA without multirange unnest.
Yeah, that seems pretty horrid. I still don't like the way the
array casts were done, but I'd be okay with pushing the unnest
addition.
regards, tom lane
