Re: Range types - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Boley
Subject Re: Range types
Date
Msg-id 6fa3b6e20912141000l26ec0bfakb23bb3dffb8b1cbb@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Range types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Range types  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Range types  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
>> Because intervals (mathematical not SQL) can be open or closed at each
>> end point we need to know what the next an previous value would be at
>> the specified granularity. And while you can do some operations without
>> knowing this, there are many you can't. For instance you could not tell
>> whether two [] or () ranges were adjacent, or be able to coalesce an
>> array of ranges.
>
> This statement seems to me to demonstrate that you don't actually
> understand the concept of open and closed ranges.  It has nothing
> whatsoever to do with assuming that the data type is discrete;
> these concepts are perfectly well defined for the reals, for example.
> What it is about is whether the inclusion conditions are "< bound"
> or "<= bound".

IMHO the first question is whether, for integers, [1,2] UNION [3,5]
should be equal to [1,5]. In math this is certainly true, and defining
'next' seems like a reasonable way to establish this in postgres.

The next question is whether, for floats, [1,3-FLT_EPSILON] UNION
[3,5] should be [1,5].

And the next question is whether, for numeric(6,2), [1,2.99] UNION
[3,5] should be [1,5].

FWIW, I would answer yes, no, yes to those three questions.

-Nathan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: new CommitFest states
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot Standby, release candidate?