On 24.03.2023 01:46, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> So if you could clean it up a bit, and do something about the two open
> items I mentioned (a bunch of tests on different array,
I've added some tests to resgress/sql/rangetypes.sql, based on the same
dataset that is used to test lower() and upper().
> and behavior
> consistent with lower/upper),
Done. This required to switch from construct_array(), which doesn't
support NULLs, to construct_md_array(), which does. A nice side effect
is that now we also support multidimentional arrays.
I've moved a common part of ranges_lower_bounds() and
ranges_upper_bounds() to ranges_bounds_common(), following Justin's advice.
There is one thing I'm not sure what to do about. This check:
if (typentry->typtype != TYPTYPE_RANGE)
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_DATATYPE_MISMATCH),
errmsg("expected array of ranges")));
doesn't work, because the range_get_typcache() call errors out first
("type %u is not a range type"). The message doesn't look friendly
enough for user-faced SQL function. Should we duplicate
range_get_typcache's logic and replace the error message?
> that'd be great.
>
>> Do we stick with the ranges_upper(anyarray) and ranges_lower(anyarray)
>> functions? This approach is okay with me. Tomas, have you made up your
>> mind?
>>
> I think the function approach is fine, but in my January 22 message I
> was wondering why we're not actually naming them simply lower/upper.
I'd expect from lower(anyarray) function to return the lowest element in
the array. This name doesn't hint that the function takes an array of
ranges. So, ranges_ prefix seems justified to me.
>
>> Do we want to document these functions? They are very
>> pg_statistic-specific and won't be useful for end users imo.
>>
> I don't see why not to document them. Sure, we're using them in a fairly
> specific context, but I don't see why not to let people use them too
> (which would be hard without docs).
Okay. I've corrected the examples a bit.
The patch is attached.
Thanks,
Egor
