From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Wrong results from in_range() tests with infinite offset |
Date: | 2020-07-16 21:50:16 |
Message-ID: | 3464257.1594936216@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> When the current row's value is +infinity, actual computation of
> base - offset would yield NaN, making it a bit unclear whether
> we should consider -infinity to be in-range. It seems to me that
> we should, as that gives more natural-looking results in the test
> cases, so that's how the patch does it.
Actually, after staring at those results awhile longer, I decided
they were wrong. The results shown here seem actually sane ---
for instance, -Infinity shouldn't "infinitely precede" itself,
I think. (Maybe if you got solipsistic enough you could argue
that that is valid, but it seems pretty bogus.)
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix-infinite-in_range-cases-2.patch | text/x-diff | 8.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-07-16 21:55:54 | Improve Managing Databases Overview Doc Page |
Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2020-07-16 19:46:03 | Re: Encoding of src/timezone/tznames/Europe.txt |