From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning by month causing an error?
In-reply-to: <8ba56626-3b91-6ac8-34a9-ab2c9ca2b8c6@gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOC+FBW=zSLyHWg2XDTp2eeEAmwzkzZLQPBqFx7_Cso=WMK3ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <9226.1576897186@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <8ba56626-3b91-6ac8-34a9-ab2c9ca2b8c6@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 20 Dec 2019 21:42:36 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <19101.1576901426.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 23:10:26 -0500
Message-ID: <19102.1576901426@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> writes:
> On 12/20/19 8:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The rule is that a range partition from A to B covers values A <= X < B.

> If I were to ask to count *from* 1 *to* 100, you'd count from 1 to 100, 
> *not* 1 to 99.  Who decided to arbitrarily break a grammatical rule we 
> (native English speakers, and I bet everyone else, too) all learn as 
> children, causing all sorts of needless confusion and breakage?

This rule breaks fewer things than a rule of A <= X <= B would.  In
particular, for more-or-less-continuous values like float8s or timestamps,
you really really don't want to have to write down
the-last-possible-value-before-the-start-of-the-next-partition.

			regards, tom lane