From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
cc: Ben Peachey Higdon <bpeacheyhigdon@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Document if width_bucket's low and high are inclusive/exclusive
In-reply-to: 
 <CABV9wwPh9+JAYBudAhTY8yPj5VJACA_FpHfEAaHMX1s4z05VkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2BD74F86-5B89-4AC1-8F13-23CED3546AC1@gmail.com>
 <CABV9wwPh9+JAYBudAhTY8yPj5VJACA_FpHfEAaHMX1s4z05VkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
	message dated "Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:56:48 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <1167134.1750277532.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 16:12:12 -0400
Message-ID: <1167135.1750277532@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1167135.1750277532%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 7:15=E2=80=AFAM Ben Peachey Higdon
> <bpeacheyhigdon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The current documentation for width_bucket (https://www.postgresql.org/=
docs/current/functions-math.html) does not mention if the range=E2=80=99s =
low and high are inclusive or exclusive.

> I'm not sure it's the most ground breaking thing, but would probably
> save a bunch of future people from having to gin up an example to test
> it, so I'd probably update it per the following patch.

Seems reasonable, but do we need to do anything with the other
version of width_bucket (the one taking an array of lower bounds)?
Perhaps this change provides enough context, but I'm unsure.

			regards, tom lane