From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: grgbnc@gmail.com
cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: minor rewording in ceil(),
 ceiling() and floor() function descriptions
In-reply-to: <158864091845.671.12957258466953428623@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
References: <158864091845.671.12957258466953428623@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Tue, 05 May 2020 01:08:38 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <15305.1588646588.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 22:43:08 -0400
Message-ID: <15306.1588646588@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> Proposed rewording for ceil() and ceiling(): "smallest integer..."
> Proposed rewording for floor(): "greatest integer..."
> Rationale: the proposed rewording is more aligned to their respective
> mathematical definitions

Actually, that's very nearly the wording we used to have, and then
changed because people found it confusing:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20160606054056.1385.38085%40wri=
gleys.postgresql.org

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=3Dpostgresql.git&a=3Dcommitdiff&h=3D7=
feb60c1bb0b1e9c97561171e9194d56694620ad

As of just a few days ago in HEAD, we have the room for clarifying example=
s
that we lacked then, so I added some:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/functions-math.html#FUNCTIONS-MATH-F=
UNC-TABLE

So maybe the confusion argument has less force than it used to.  Still,
I'm disinclined to go back.  In this particular area, I think Matlab's
precedent is at least as strong as Wikipedia's.

			regards, tom lane