From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Fedor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: compress method for spgist - 2 |
Date: | 2017-09-21 00:14:45 |
Message-ID: | 9463.1505952885@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <
> me(at)komzpa(dot)net> wrote:
>> What is rationale behind this circle?
> I would prefer to rather forbid any geometries with infs and nans.
> However, then upgrade process will suffer. User with such geometries would
> get errors during dump/restore, pg_upgraded instances would still contain
> invalid values...
Yeah, that ship has sailed unfortunately.
>> It seems to me that any circle with radius of any Infinity should become a
>> [-Infinity .. Infinity, -Infinity .. Infinity] box.Then you won't have
>> NaNs, and index structure shouldn't be broken.
> We probably should produce [-Infinity .. Infinity, -Infinity .. Infinity]
> box for any geometry containing inf or nan.
Hm, we can do better in at least some cases, eg for a box ((0,1),(1,inf))
there's no reason to give up our knowledge of finite bounds for the
other three boundaries. But certainly for a NaN circle radius
what you suggest seems the most sensible thing to do.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-09-21 00:16:28 | Re: Windows warnings from VS 2017 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-21 00:08:00 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |