From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] extract(epoch from infinity) is not 0 |
Date: | 2011-07-13 21:22:36 |
Message-ID: | 10833.1310592156@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> I see:
>>
>> if (TIMESTAMP_NOT_FINITE(timestamp))
>> {
>> result = 0;
>> PG_RETURN_FLOAT8(result);
>> }
>>
>> Does anyone object to changing this?
> It's sort of non-obvious that either behavior is better than the other. We might just be replacing one surprising behavior with another.
Well, this code path is not much except a punt. If we're going to touch
it we should think through the behavior for all field types, not just
epoch.
I think a reasonable case could be made for throwing error or returning
NaN (indicating "indeterminate") for most field types. I can see
returning +/- infinity for epoch --- are there any others where that's
sane?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-13 22:16:56 | Re: [BUGS] extract(epoch from infinity) is not 0 |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-07-13 21:22:26 | Re: [BUGS] extract(epoch from infinity) is not 0 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-07-13 21:56:13 | Reduced power consumption in WAL Writer process |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-07-13 21:22:26 | Re: [BUGS] extract(epoch from infinity) is not 0 |