Greetings,
* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 17:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > (The commit message doesn't seem to have made it to the pgsql-
> > committers
> > list either, but that's probably an independent issue.)
>
> I was curious about that as well.
The whitelis
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 05:36:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis writes:
> > I went ahead and committed this using Thomas's suggestion to remove the
> > parentheses.
>
> The commit message claims this was back-patched, but I see no back-patch?
>
> (The commit message doesn't seem to have m
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 17:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The commit message claims this was back-patched, but I see no back-
> patch?
Sorry, I noticed an issue after pushing: we were passing a datum
directly to DATE_NOT_FINITE, when we should have called
DatumGetDateADT() first. I ran through the test
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 13:56 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I went ahead and committed this using Thomas's suggestion to remove the
> parentheses.
Thanks for the review and the commit!
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
Jeff Davis writes:
> I went ahead and committed this using Thomas's suggestion to remove the
> parentheses.
The commit message claims this was back-patched, but I see no back-patch?
(The commit message doesn't seem to have made it to the pgsql-committers
list either, but that's probably an indep
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 15:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I take back the bit about reading an uninitialised value (X || Y
> doesn't access Y if X is true... duh), but I still think the other
> way
> of putting it is a bit easier to read. YMMV.
>
> Generally, +1 for this patch. I'll wait a couple
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:44 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> 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
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:49 AM Laurenz Albe 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 re
I wrote:
> I propose the attached patch which fixes the problem.
I forgot to attach the patch. Here it is.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From 6bbad0acf3baae3a08d1f911b7017642c8a8afe9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Laurenz Albe
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 14:32:27 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Don't canonicalize dater
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/rangetypes.html#RANGETYPES-INFINITE has:
Also, some element types have a notion of “infinity”, but that is just
another value so far as the range type mechanisms are concerned.
For example, in timestamp ranges, [today,] means the same thing as [toda
10 matches
Mail list logo
