On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:49 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > > I propose the attached patch which fixes the problem.
Hi Laurenz, I agree that the patch makes the code match the documentation. The documented behaviour seems to make more sense than the code, since unpatched master gives this nonsense result when it flips the inclusive flag but doesn't adjust the value (because it can't): postgres=# select '(-infinity,infinity]'::daterange @> 'infinity'::date; ?column? ---------- f (1 row) - if (!upper.infinite && upper.inclusive) + if (!(upper.infinite || DATE_NOT_FINITE(upper.val)) && upper.inclusive) Even though !(X || Y) is equivalent to !X && !Y, by my reading of range_in(), lower.value can be uninitialised when lower.infinite is true, and it's also a bit hard to read IMHO, so I'd probably write that as !upper.infinite && !DATE_NOT_FINITE(upper.val) && upper.inclusive. I don't think it can affect the result but it might upset Valgrind or similar. -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com
