| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, 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 17:31:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1318267869.1724.132.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 12:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > The "canonicalize" function (specified at type creation time) allows you
> > to specify the canonical output representation. So, I can change the
> > canonical form for discrete ranges to use '[]' notation if we think
> > that's more expected.
>
> 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.
So, are you suggesting that I canonicalize to '[]' then? That seems
reasonable to me, but there's still some slight awkwardness because
int4range(1,10) would be '[1,9]'.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-10-10 17:34:02 | Re: COUNT(*) and index-only scans |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2011-10-10 17:30:09 | Re: SET variable - Permission issues |