Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes: > On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, 22:50 Tom Lane, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: >> 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.)
> Hmm, that code looks a bit fishy to me, but I really need to think about it > some more. I'll take another look tomorrow, and maybe it'll become clearer.
It's certainly verbose, so I'd like to find a more concise way to write the logic. But the v2 results seem right.