Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 08:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It needs to return FALSE, actually. After further reading I realized
>> that you have that behavior hard-wired into the range GiST routines,
>> and it's silly to make the stand-alone versions of the function act
>> differently.
> Good point. That makes sense to me.
While thinking about this ... would it be sensible for range_lower and
range_upper to return NULL instead of throwing an exception for empty or
infinite ranges? As with these comparison functions, throwing an error
seems like a fairly unpleasant definition to work with in practice.
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
