| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
| Date: | 2011-10-11 17:51:46 |
| Message-ID: | 13601.1318355506@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-10-11 18:04:07 | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-10-11 17:51:45 | Re: Dumping roles improvements? |