|From:||Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>|
|To:||Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, jani(dot)rahkola(at)iki(dot)fi, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Documentation of return values of range functions lower and upper|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 22:49 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On 2020/11/12 17:14, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-11-11 at 18:19 +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > > Table 9.54 in page
> > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-range.html states that the
> > > > functions lower and upper return NULL if the requested bound is infinite. If
> > > > the element type of the range contains the special values infinity and
> > > > -infinity, this is not correct, as those values are returned if explicitly
> > > > used as either bound.
> > > +1
> > > Perhaps it would be better to say
> > > NULL if the range is empty or has no lower/upper bound
> I agree this description looks a bit confusing. But according to the section
> "Infinite (Unbounded) Ranges" (*1), we already call "lower/upper bound
> omitted" just infinite. So I don't think the current description is incorrect.
That is correct, but I'd argue that it would be better to clarify the paragraph too,
The functions lower_inf and upper_inf test for infinite lower and upper bounds of a range, respectively.
should better read
The functions lower_inf and upper_inf test for omitted lower and upper bounds of a range, respectively.
The rest of the paragraph is pretty unambiguous.
Independent of this, I think that my patch for "upper" and "lower" would make the
|Next Message||Erik Rijkers||2020-11-20 21:52:32||Re: Additional Chapter for Tutorial - arch-dev.sgml|
|Previous Message||Fujii Masao||2020-11-18 13:49:10||Re: Documentation of return values of range functions lower and upper|