Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from
 <pgsql-docs-owner+M8635=pgsql+2Ddocs=arkaria.postgresql.org@postgresql.org>)
	id 1bABUN-00042p-Uy
	for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:31:52 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from
 <pgsql-docs-owner+M8635=pgsql+2Ddocs=arkaria.postgresql.org@postgresql.org>)
	id 1bABUM-0003GZ-MI
	for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:31:50 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <juergen@purtz.de>)
	id 1bABU0-0002sk-6F
	for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:31:28 +0000
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.135])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
	(Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <juergen@purtz.de>)
	id 1bABTw-00088R-To
	for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:31:27 +0000
Received: from [192.168.178.26] ([84.165.199.215]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de
 (mreue003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MFwt0-1bCtBc130o-00Es2f for
 <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 09:31:22 +0200
Subject: Re: Math function description issue
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <20160606054056.1385.38085@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAB7nPqSiJwS_YTyy_v5ZDKV-ywGs5wV9YrXwT=uOp1hMS-oY=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <9158.1465268785@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= <juergen@purtz.de>
Message-ID: <5756784D.3040602@purtz.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:31:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9158.1465268785@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:6yBlhjSdRBQ2eJPHsTwroaddR41LYd8jpzIcHMEOx5Ur3Vs9xUQ
 MRzpvWtPb6tsBmn2RTM0MvTJmDIRFDdqCBP1I1tTouQm5deX0LbfazVFg7YDInVhMyg2eUT
 kTqu8wix9hXwZRtpOt65LgTA+lEKpmbaqPpVxXqLEiJ+DE62IccyAqWzs0RE8eo9trAACZ7
 b7pbsXqeniLzRlK28uQ8w==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:ZDJW8TACyqo=:UNn/yCHH2c+kAgCh+xJ5ks
 P66hSLkOusju0adVMen5qsw7Vmx0xHyLCTrO39yq/Hl4h11x5JvclSuTGP/dKabFtCZSpbGQA
 h3kElMgYw3SUDkPMFCxdoF2q6fzbUEv86WSLYLCZnX8NvshIb9O4QGPV2Azb/MZXxV4OzLySy
 ZtOhxa1I/Vkwb4iQG4mrATa6Pj+xu7tR2W3kjzsFP+1k0yAE+ZFnrfjVxsqnCen7IkTx5z+Bs
 g1KCjcnqDopPB/dzYXkAlnmQSkYWMcQISIWIHliipRH4lnRuD2Ri78kVK7YiycJGtNAP6/Pmr
 Ohbis7kbp2zPIOAfs8cTQWV4d6kW5S92fR9aX/+xajScL614aija6p3i2ExzVcKo3GuV61rg3
 qnc73TN0ZS9MDQ3qmeVWdrhgT6uJJnzKctUQhZI81rIP66Hj5iNDZGR0U0sclsSJhaiyV12GH
 HvXb1EAYBlRDsGJUK0gTIc6fLJIflk1kAm8zLkz5/MzlNDmcuEs70iHbQxYQ90wYeQdI4xO3J
 pfgcXrAlYQqbqSveBIeXsDJWoetbukZ1jGuK9Z+LT4DJK12nB5RBK/sD6h0pb9lrQhfAHMB4q
 QSbrjW3ZfeeFSOcPDvrZt/oy6WH+Ha7WKl/UdhVPrxfiSrHU3uBNaa4ZmOa0tRfUY7XEHLMvy
 AnNRsecPCKVdsPvvdz7VQc8hN/lA+HGv5HFwbi5MjwiwSu8dXKOp14oB6tqUy2djgaDi/IL7x
 wCztjIJnaaWypu09
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs>
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
List-ID: <pgsql-docs.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-docs>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-docs>
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

The standard says:

"<ceiling function> computes the least integer greater than or equal to 
its argument."

a) In my opinion this wording is easier to understand because it avoids 
the negation via "not less".
b) To dispel the ambiguities concerning what is greater or lesser (with 
negative numbers) we may add a second example with +42.8 and an 
additional comment - something like: "Please consider the situation with 
negative numbers: -42 is greater than -43".

Jürgen Purtz



On 07.06.2016 05:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:40 PM,  <npistud@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Please, check ceil, ceiling and floor functions. Example is correct, but
>>> description is wrong.
>> We could make things indeed more precise. Say for ceil, we use
>> "smallest *following* integer", and for floor, "largest *previous*
>> integer", and we keep the mention to "not less/greater than argument"
>> to show the fact that a numeric already rounded to an integer is equal
>> to itself. See the patch attached.
> Meh --- I'm not sure that adding previous/following really adds much
> clarity.  Either with the existing wording or with yours, the statement
> is correct as long as you read "smaller" as "closer to minus infinity",
> a/k/a "further left on the number line".  But if you are thinking it
> means "closer to zero", which is what I think the OP is thinking, this
> won't do much to disabuse you of your confusion.
>
> We had a similar complaint not long ago, so it does seem that the
> wording could stand to be clarified.  But I doubt this way fixes it.
> Not sure how to do better ...
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
>



-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs