Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types

From: Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Improve geometric types
Date: 2017-11-29 18:28:26
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> flost8_lt and its family functions are provided to unify the
> sorting order including NaN. NaN is not rejected by the usage of
> float8_lt in the case but it is what the function is expected to
> be used for. If we wanted to check if it is positive, it
> unexpectedly throws an exception. (I suppose that NaNs should be
> silently ignored rather than stopping a query by throwng an
> exception.)

It would at least be dump-and-restore hazard if we don't let them in.
The new version allows NaNs.

> This gives a wrong result for NaN-containing objects.

I removed the NaN aware comparisons from FP macros, and carefully
reviewed the places that needs to be NaN aware.

I am sorry that it took so long for me to post the new versions. The
more I get into this the more problems I find. The new versions
include non-trivial changes. I would be glad if you can look into

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-geo-funcs-v06.patch application/octet-stream 98.9 KB
0002-float-header-v10.patch application/octet-stream 84.2 KB
0003-geo-float-v07.patch application/octet-stream 81.6 KB
0004-line-fixes-v06.patch application/octet-stream 16.0 KB
0005-float-zero-v02.patch application/octet-stream 2.0 KB
0006-geo-tests-v02.patch application/octet-stream 412.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-11-29 18:49:54 Re: simplehash: tb->sizemask = 0
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-11-29 18:22:50 Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++