Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> 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.
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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
