On Sep21, 2011, at 19:02 , Jeff Davis wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 13:24 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
I've thought about this some more, and came to realize that the question
here really is whether
floatrange(0, 'Infinity'::float, '[)')
and
floatrange(0, NULL, '[)')
are the same
hello
sorry for late assign to discussion.
I don't think so using NULL instead INF is a good idea.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2011/9/19 Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com:
On Sun, 2011-09-18 at 18:08 +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote:
Below are 2 changes. The first change is an elog saying 'lower' instead of
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
select '[ 2 , NULL )'::int4range;
ERROR: NULL range boundaries are not supported
LINE 1: select '[ 2 , NULL )'::int4range;
I think this might require more opinions. There is a trade-off here
between convenience and
On Sep19, 2011, at 15:33 , Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
select '[ 2 , NULL )'::int4range;
ERROR: NULL range boundaries are not supported
LINE 1: select '[ 2 , NULL )'::int4range;
I think this might require more opinions. There is a
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 17:23 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
The one reason I can see in favour of supporting N-U-L-L there is
compatibility with arrays.
But arrays actually do store and produce NULLs; ranges don't.
I've recently had the questionable pleasure
of writing PHP functions to parse
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
select '[ 2 , NULL )'::int4range;
ERROR: NULL range boundaries are not supported
LINE 1: select '[ 2 , NULL )'::int4range;
I think this might require more opinions. There is a trade-off
here between convenience
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
On Sep19, 2011, at 15:33 , Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
select '[ 2 , NULL )'::int4range;
ERROR: NULL range boundaries are not supported
LINE 1: select '[ 2 , NULL
On Sep19, 2011, at 17:46 , Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 17:23 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
The one reason I can see in favour of supporting N-U-L-L there is
compatibility with arrays.
But arrays actually do store and produce NULLs; ranges don't.
Hm, yeah, granted. But OTOH,
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 11:00 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
On a practical level, our shop is already effectively doing this.
We have several tables where part of the primary key is effective
date and there is a null capable expiration date -- with a NULL
meaning that no expiration date has been
On Tue, September 13, 2011 10:41, Jeff Davis wrote:
Another updated patch is attached.
Hi,
Below are 2 changes. The first change is an elog saying 'lower' instead of
'upper'.
The second change is less straightforward, but I think it should be changed too:
Rangetypes as it stands uses NULL
101 - 110 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
