On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 08:33:28AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:15:17PM +0200, Eugen Konkov wrote:
> > !Specifying a missing bound as exclusive is automatically converted
> > !to inclusive, e.g., [,] is automatically converted
> > !to (,)
> >
> > Misspell?
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:15:17PM +0200, Eugen Konkov wrote:
> !Specifying a missing bound as exclusive is automatically converted
> !to inclusive, e.g., [,] is automatically converted
> !to (,)
>
> Misspell?
>
> You say:
>exclusive is automatically converted to inclusive
> But
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 04:15:29PM +0300, Eugen Konkov wrote:
> Today I got next ambiguous:
>
> select tstzrange( 'infinity', null );
> tstzrange
> -
> [infinity,)
> (1 row)
>
> [DOC](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/rangetypes.html) stated:
> >if the upper bound of the range
Today I got next ambiguous:
select tstzrange( 'infinity', null );
tstzrange
-
[infinity,)
(1 row)
[DOC](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/rangetypes.html) stated:
>if the upper bound of the range is omitted, then all points greater than the
>lower bound are included in the
Eugen Konkov writes:
> if you allow I will suggest to map/convert 'infinity' value to
> unbound range, for datatypes which defines 'infinity' value.
That was intentionally rejected in the original range types design,
and even if we thought that decision was wrong, it's too late to
change it
1.
Also I found next ambiguous part:
select upper_inf( '["2018-08-14","Infinity")'::daterange );
Thanks jstag from IRC for explanation that unbound and infinite are
different essence.
Thus, on the page
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/functions-range.html
lower_inf(anyrange)
On 4/29/19 12:12 PM, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/rangetypes.html
> Description:
>
> Hi.
>
> May I read this:
>
> But [today,infinity] means something different from
