On Jun27, 2011, at 03:12 , Jeff Davis wrote:
> But I think you're right, it shouldn't be the responsibility of range
> types. Perhaps I should leave length() as some inlinable SQL functions
> like I mentioned, or perhaps I should remove them completely.
Does the current definition of length(range), i.e. upper(range) - lower(range)
deal correctly with open vs. closed ranges and unbounded ranges? I'm thinking
that it probably doesn't - what would be the results of length('[0,1]'::intrange) -- Should be 2
length('[0,1)'::intrange)-- Should be 1 length('[0,inf]'::intrange) -- Should be infinity, but ints can't
represent that, can't they?
If it cannot be easily made to support these cases, than I vote for
removing it all together.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
