On 20.03.2023 22:27, Gregory Stark (as CFM) wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 18:22, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> I wonder if we have other functions doing something similar, i.e.
>> accepting a polymorphic type and then imposing additional restrictions
>> on it.
> Meh, there's things like array comparison functions that require both
> arguments to be the same kind of arrays. And array_agg that requires
> the elements to be the same type as the state array (ie, same type as
> the first element). Not sure there are any taking just one specific
> type though.
>
>>> Shouldn't this add some sql tests ?
>> Yeah, I guess we should have a couple tests calling these functions on
>> different range arrays.
>>
>> This reminds me lower()/upper() have some extra rules about handling
>> empty ranges / infinite boundaries etc. These functions should behave
>> consistently (as if we called lower() in a loop) and I'm pretty sure
>> that's not the current state.
> Are we still waiting on these two items? Egor, do you think you'll
> have a chance to work it for this month?
I can try to tidy things up, but I'm not sure if we reached a consensus.
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?
Do we want to document these functions? They are very
pg_statistic-specific and won't be useful for end users imo.
