On 2 October 2011 20:05, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 11:32 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: >> Looking at the patch, I noticed that it's possible to specify the default >> boundaries ([], [), (] or ()) per individual float type with the >> DEFAULT_FLAGS clause of CREATE TYPE .. AS RANGE. I wonder if that doesn't >> do more harm then good - it makes it impossible to deduce the meaning of >> e.g. numericrange(1.0, 2.0) without looking up the definition of >> numericrange. >> >> I suggest we pick one set of default boundaries, ideally '[)' since that >> is what all the built-in canonization functions produce, and stick with it. > > Done. > > Also, made the range parsing even more like records with more code > copied verbatim. And fixed some parsing tests along the way.
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? -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
