Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> Tom made an observation about '[1,INT_MAX]' thowing an error because
> canonicalization would try to increment INT_MAX. But I'm not
> particularly disturbed by it. If you want a bigger range, use int8range
> or numrange -- the same advice we give to people who want unsigned
> types. Or, for people who really need the entire range of signed int4
> exactly, they can easily make their own range type that canonicalizes to
> '[]'.
I agree we shouldn't contort the entire design to avoid that corner
case. We should, however, make sure that the increment *does* throw
an error, and not just silently overflow.
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
