On 3 July 2017 at 06:00, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2017/07/03 2:15, Dean Rasheed wrote: >> My first thought was UNBOUNDED ABOVE/BELOW, because that matches the >> terminology already in use of upper and lower bounds. > > I was starting to like the Ashutosh's suggested UNBOUNDED MIN/MAX syntax, > but could you clarify your comment that ABOVE/BELOW is the terminology > already in use of upper and lower bounds? I couldn't find ABOVE/BELOW in > our existing syntax anywhere that uses the upper/lower bound notion, so > was confused a little bit. >
I just meant that the words "above" and "below" more closely match the already-used terms "upper" and "lower" for the bounds, so that terminology seemed more consistent, e.g. "UNBOUNDED ABOVE" => no upper bound. > Also, I assume UNBOUNDED ABOVE signifies positive infinity and vice versa. > Right. I'm not particularly wedded to that terminology. I always find naming things hard, so if anyone can think of anything better, let's hear it. The bigger question is do we want this for PG10? If so, time is getting tight. My feeling is that we do, because otherwise we'd be changing the syntax in PG11 of a feature only just released in PG10, and I think the current syntax is flawed, so it would be better not to have it in any public release. I'd feel better hearing from the original committer though. Meanwhile, I'll continue trying to review the latest patches... Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
