Re: pgsql: Protect GIST logic that assumes penalty values can't be negative

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Protect GIST logic that assumes penalty values can't be negative
Date: 2011-05-31 23:07:12
Message-ID: BANLkTi=d+bPpS1cM4YC8KuKHj63Hwj4LMA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>  Prevent problems by clamping negative penalty values to
> zero.  (Just to be really sure, I also made it force NaNs to zero.)

Do gistchoose et al expect the triangle function to obey the triangle
inequality? If so isn't it possible treating NaNs as zero would fail
that? I'm not sure there's any safe assumption for NaN

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-05-31 23:11:59 Re: pgsql: Protect GIST logic that assumes penalty values can't be negative
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-05-31 21:54:38 pgsql: Protect GIST logic that assumes penalty values can't be negative

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-05-31 23:11:59 Re: pgsql: Protect GIST logic that assumes penalty values can't be negative
Previous Message Greg Stark 2011-05-31 23:03:56 Re: creating CHECK constraints as NOT VALID