BUG #8367: wrong example in 8.17.10

Started by KOIZUMI Satoruover 12 years ago3 messagesbugs
Jump to latest
#1KOIZUMI Satoru
koizumistr@minos.ocn.ne.jp

The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference: 8367
Logged by: KOIZUMI Satoru
Email address: koizumistr@minos.ocn.ne.jp
PostgreSQL version: 9.2.4
Operating system: MacOSX
Description:

In 8.17.10 "Constraints on Ranges" of PostgreSQL 9.2.4 Documentation, a
constraint will prevent the overlapping values in an example.
But in the example, range [2010-01-01 11:30, 2010-01-01 13:00) and range
[2010-01-01 14:45, 2010-01-01 15:45) do not overlap.

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

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: KOIZUMI Satoru (#1)
Re: BUG #8367: wrong example in 8.17.10

koizumistr@minos.ocn.ne.jp writes:

In 8.17.10 "Constraints on Ranges" of PostgreSQL 9.2.4 Documentation, a
constraint will prevent the overlapping values in an example.
But in the example, range [2010-01-01 11:30, 2010-01-01 13:00) and range
[2010-01-01 14:45, 2010-01-01 15:45) do not overlap.

No, but the second one overlaps with the range value shown in 8.17.2.
So this is correct if it's understood as a continuation of that example.
Still, it's kind of a long way from 8.17.2 to 8.17.10. It might be better
if this section were recast to use a standalone example --- Jeff, what do
you think?

regards, tom lane

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

#3Jeff Davis
pgsql@j-davis.com
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: BUG #8367: wrong example in 8.17.10

On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 12:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

koizumistr@minos.ocn.ne.jp writes:

In 8.17.10 "Constraints on Ranges" of PostgreSQL 9.2.4 Documentation, a
constraint will prevent the overlapping values in an example.
But in the example, range [2010-01-01 11:30, 2010-01-01 13:00) and range
[2010-01-01 14:45, 2010-01-01 15:45) do not overlap.

No, but the second one overlaps with the range value shown in 8.17.2.
So this is correct if it's understood as a continuation of that example.
Still, it's kind of a long way from 8.17.2 to 8.17.10. It might be better
if this section were recast to use a standalone example --- Jeff, what do
you think?

That sounds reasonable, patch attached. Minor change, so if nobody has
any more suggestions I'll commit it tomorrow night.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

Attachments:

rangetypes-example.patchtext/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name=rangetypes-example.patchDownload+18-17