pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Bad canonicalization for dateranges with 'infinity' bounds
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 14:49:23 +0200
Message-ID: <539fbfe416eb3d7ebf72268eb839163a68aed9ef.camel@cybertec.at> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <77f24ea19ab802bc9bc60ddbb8977ee2d646aec1.camel@cybertec.at >
References: <77f24ea19ab802bc9bc60ddbb8977ee2d646aec1.camel@cybertec.at >
I wrote:
> I propose the attached patch which fixes the problem.
I forgot to attach the patch. Here it is.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
Attachments:
0001-Don-t-canonicalize-dateranges-with-infinity-bounds.patch (text/x-patch, 3.4K) download
From 6bbad0acf3baae3a08d1f911b7017642c8a8afe9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 14:32:27 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Don't canonicalize dateranges with 'infinity' bounds
Since adding one to infinity doesn't change the value, canonicalization
of dateranges with an explicit '-infinity' as exclusive lower bound
would make it an inclusive bound, while dateranges with 'infinity' as
inclusive upper bound would turn it into an exclusive bound.
---
src/backend/utils/adt/rangetypes.c | 4 ++--
src/test/regress/expected/rangetypes.out | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
src/test/regress/sql/rangetypes.sql | 4 ++++
3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/rangetypes.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/rangetypes.c
index 72c450c70e..a98f17bb66 100644
--- a/src/backend/utils/adt/rangetypes.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/adt/rangetypes.c
@@ -1431,13 +1431,13 @@ daterange_canonical(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
if (empty)
PG_RETURN_RANGE_P(r);
- if (!lower.infinite && !lower.inclusive)
+ if (!(lower.infinite || DATE_NOT_FINITE(lower.val)) && !lower.inclusive)
{
lower.val = DirectFunctionCall2(date_pli, lower.val, Int32GetDatum(1));
lower.inclusive = true;
}
- if (!upper.infinite && upper.inclusive)
+ if (!(upper.infinite || DATE_NOT_FINITE(upper.val)) && upper.inclusive)
{
upper.val = DirectFunctionCall2(date_pli, upper.val, Int32GetDatum(1));
upper.inclusive = false;
diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/rangetypes.out b/src/test/regress/expected/rangetypes.out
index accf1e0d9e..60d875e898 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/rangetypes.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/rangetypes.out
@@ -652,6 +652,30 @@ select daterange('2000-01-10'::date, '2000-01-11'::date, '(]');
[01-11-2000,01-12-2000)
(1 row)
+select daterange('-infinity'::date, '2000-01-01'::date, '()');
+ daterange
+------------------------
+ (-infinity,01-01-2000)
+(1 row)
+
+select daterange('-infinity'::date, '2000-01-01'::date, '[)');
+ daterange
+------------------------
+ [-infinity,01-01-2000)
+(1 row)
+
+select daterange('2000-01-01'::date, 'infinity'::date, '[)');
+ daterange
+-----------------------
+ [01-01-2000,infinity)
+(1 row)
+
+select daterange('2000-01-01'::date, 'infinity'::date, '[]');
+ daterange
+-----------------------
+ [01-01-2000,infinity]
+(1 row)
+
-- test GiST index that's been built incrementally
create table test_range_gist(ir int4range);
create index test_range_gist_idx on test_range_gist using gist (ir);
diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/rangetypes.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/rangetypes.sql
index 55638a85ee..9fdb1953df 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/sql/rangetypes.sql
+++ b/src/test/regress/sql/rangetypes.sql
@@ -165,6 +165,10 @@ select daterange('2000-01-10'::date, '2000-01-20'::date, '(]');
select daterange('2000-01-10'::date, '2000-01-20'::date, '()');
select daterange('2000-01-10'::date, '2000-01-11'::date, '()');
select daterange('2000-01-10'::date, '2000-01-11'::date, '(]');
+select daterange('-infinity'::date, '2000-01-01'::date, '()');
+select daterange('-infinity'::date, '2000-01-01'::date, '[)');
+select daterange('2000-01-01'::date, 'infinity'::date, '[)');
+select daterange('2000-01-01'::date, 'infinity'::date, '[]');
-- test GiST index that's been built incrementally
create table test_range_gist(ir int4range);
--
2.20.1
view thread (10+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <539fbfe416eb3d7ebf72268eb839163a68aed9ef.camel@cybertec.at>
Permalink: ../539fbfe416eb3d7ebf72268eb839163a68aed9ef.camel@cybertec.at/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/539fbfe416eb3d7ebf72268eb839163a68aed9ef.camel@cybertec.at
copy link · copy postgr.es · copy git am
reply Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Bad canonicalization for dateranges with 'infinity' bounds
In-Reply-To: <539fbfe416eb3d7ebf72268eb839163a68aed9ef.camel@cybertec.at>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox