Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: [GENERAL] +/- Inf for float8's

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] +/- Inf for float8's
Date: 2001-06-02 20:50:03
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106022243150.23690-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> [ continuing a discussion from last August ]
[I was *just* thinking about this.  Funny.]

> I believe that's not a problem anymore.  The current form of the float
> comparison functions will perform sorting and comparisons according to
> the sequence
>
> 	-infinity < normal values < infinity < NaN < NULL

I was thinking about making NaN equivalent to NULL.  That would give
consistency in ordering, and probably also in arithmetic.  Additionally,
if the platform supports it we ought to make the Invalid Operation FP
exception (which yields NaN) configurable:  either get NULL or get an
error.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-02 21:11:00
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] +/- Inf for float8's
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-02 20:31:27
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] +/- Inf for float8's

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group