"Rae Stiening" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Description of the "width_bucket(...)"
> "return the bucket to which operand would be assigned in an equidepth
> histogram with count buckets, an upper bound of b1, and a lower bound of
> b2"
> I believe that the lower bound is b1 and upper b2.
I agree that this is a typo, but looking at the spec and the function
code, the description seems misleading altogether. Apparently b1 > b2
is allowed and the computation is effectively negated then (the buckets
are numbered in descending rather than ascending order). So ISTM that
just switching "lower" and "upper" in the text doesn't really get us to
the point of adequately documenting the function. But the description
is already too long to fit comfortably in the table, so adding another
sentence to cover the b1 > b2 case isn't attractive.
Any ideas what to do? Would "starting bound" and "ending bound" work,
or just confuse people more?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
