Re: Why is NULL = unbounded for rangetypes?

On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 11:22 +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> But I agree that returning NULL would be OK, then it would be easy to
> catch in queries when starting playing with range-types in queries.
> Having it implicitly mean infinity comes as a surprise, to me at
> least.

Agreed. This was discussed at the time, and the original version of
Range Types experimented with other means of specifying unbounded ranges
in order to avoid this possible confusion.

Unfortunately, everything we tried was awkward one way or another; and
we eventually made the decision to go with greater convenience, even if
it could cause some confusion.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis