| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issue with point_ops and NaN |
| Date: | 2021-04-01 07:54:20 |
| Message-ID: | f4203680196509a76f89fb7f60e5e944cd6fe935.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 09:35 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > > > > > SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@ polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
> > > > > > > > ?column?
> > > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > t
> > > > > > > > (1 row)
> >
> > If you think of "NaN" literally as "not a number", then FALSE would
> > make sense, since "not a number" implies "not a number between 0 and 1".
> > But since NaN is the result of operations like 0/0 or infinity - infinity,
> > NULL might be better.
> > So I'd opt for NULL too.
>
> Thanks. Do you think it's acceptable that returning false instead of
> NULL as an alternative behavior?
Yes, I think that is acceptable.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arseny Sher | 2021-04-01 07:58:25 | Re: Flaky vacuum truncate test in reloptions.sql |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-04-01 06:46:06 | Re: Issue with point_ops and NaN |