From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
cc: npistud@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Math function description issue
In-reply-to: 
 <CAB7nPqSiJwS_YTyy_v5ZDKV-ywGs5wV9YrXwT=uOp1hMS-oY=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160606054056.1385.38085@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <CAB7nPqSiJwS_YTyy_v5ZDKV-ywGs5wV9YrXwT=uOp1hMS-oY=A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:15:37 +0900"
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 23:06:25 -0400
Message-ID: <9158.1465268785@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

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