Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 14:27 +0100, Thom Brown wrote: >> 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?
> The "canonicalize" function (specified at type creation time) allows you > to specify the canonical output representation. So, I can change the > canonical form for discrete ranges to use '[]' notation if we think > that's more expected. What if I write '[1,INT_MAX]'::int4range? The open-parenthesis form will fail with an integer overflow. I suppose you could canonicalize it to an unbounded range, but that seems unnecessarily surprising. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers