| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Infinities in type numeric |
| Date: | 2020-06-12 18:02:37 |
| Message-ID: | 87h7vg5fo9.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
[...]
Tom> so that a finite value should never map to INT[64]_MIN, making it
Tom> safe to do as you suggest. I agree that distinguishing +Inf from
Tom> NaN is probably more useful than distinguishing it from the very
Tom> largest class of finite values, so will do it as you suggest.
Tom> Thanks!
It would make sense to make sure there's a test case in which at least
one value of all three of: a finite value much greater than 10^332, a
+Inf, and a NaN were all present in the same sort, if there isn't one
already.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-12 18:13:11 | Re: BUG #16040: PL/PGSQL RETURN QUERY statement never uses a parallel plan |
| Previous Message | Joshua Drake | 2020-06-12 17:58:25 | Serializable wrong? |