From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Bad canonicalization for dateranges with 'infinity' bounds |
Date: | 2019-05-02 12:40:52 |
Message-ID: | 77f24ea19ab802bc9bc60ddbb8977ee2d646aec1.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/rangetypes.html#RANGETYPES-INFINITE has:
Also, some element types have a notion of “infinity”, but that is just
another value so far as the range type mechanisms are concerned.
For example, in timestamp ranges, [today,] means the same thing as [today,).
But [today,infinity] means something different from [today,infinity) —
the latter excludes the special timestamp value infinity.
This does not work as expected for ranges with discrete base types,
notably daterange:
test=> SELECT '[2000-01-01,infinity]'::daterange;
daterange
-----------------------
[2000-01-01,infinity)
(1 row)
test=> SELECT '(-infinity,2000-01-01)'::daterange;
daterange
------------------------
[-infinity,2000-01-01)
(1 row)
This is because "daterange_canonical" makes no difference for 'infinity',
and adding one to infinity does not change the value.
I propose the attached patch which fixes the problem.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2019-05-02 12:49:23 | Re: Bad canonicalization for dateranges with 'infinity' bounds |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-05-02 12:35:45 | Re: walsender vs. XLogBackgroundFlush during shutdown |