On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 14:27 +0100, Thom Brown wrote: > I don't know if this has already been discussed, but can you explain > the following: > > postgres=# select '[1,8]'::int4range; > int4range > ----------- > [1,9) > (1 row) > > It seems unintuitive to represent a discrete range using an exclusive > upper bound. While I agree that the value itself is correct, it's > representation looks odd. Is it necessary?
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. But then "int4range(1,8)" would still mean "int4range(1,8,'[)')" and therefore '[1,7]'. I used to have a "default_flags" parameter that could also be specified at type creation time that would control the default third parameter (the parameter that controls inclusivity) of the constructor. However, I removed the "default_flags" parameter because, as Florian pointed out, it's better to have a consistent output from the constructor. I'm open to suggestions, including potentially bringing back "default_flags". Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers