Re: Wrong results from in_range() tests with infinite offset

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, 22:50 Tom Lane, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> 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.)
>

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.

Regards,
Dean