| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
| Date: | 2011-10-10 17:22:50 |
| Message-ID: | 01755379-7AFC-4B2F-ABF2-5F5F8414A80D@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct10, 2011, at 18:53 , Tom Lane wrote:
> What if I write '[1,INT_MAX]'::int4range? The open-parenthesis form will
> fail with an integer overflow. I suppose you could canonicalize it to
> an unbounded range, but that seems unnecessarily surprising.
That is a very good point. Canonicalizing to an unbounded range doesn't work,
because, as it stands, the ranges '[1, INT_MAX]' and '[1,)' are *not* equal. So
the only remaining option is to canonicalize to the closed form always.
I still think we should strive for consistency here, so let's also make
'[]' the default flags for the range constructors.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-10-10 17:23:35 | COUNT(*) and index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2011-10-10 17:06:02 | Re: SET variable - Permission issues |