David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Just looking for recollection regarding why these were omitted initially and > if anyone has concerned adding them in follow-up. My recollection is that RANGE requires some data-type-specific behavior that we don't have any provision for in PG's datatype extension framework (something about increment/decrement I think, but too lazy to consult the archives for details). The original window-function patch had some klugy hard-wired behavior for a small set of datatypes, which we quite properly rejected as not being up to project standards: datatype extensibility is one of PG's defining features, and we're not going to give it up lightly. Nobody's yet done the work to get something that would pass muster. > With the recent > hypothetical work being done maybe these can be re-evaluated in a fresh > light? AFAIK those functions are unrelated to this problem. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
