From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Issue with point_ops and NaN |
Date: | 2021-03-30 15:39:40 |
Message-ID: | 20210330153940.vmncwnmuw3qnpkfa@nol |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:47:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >> I'd say that this is certainly wrong:
> >> SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@ polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
> >>
> >> ?column?
> >> ----------
> >> t
> >> (1 row)
>
> > Yeah that's what I think too, but I wanted to have confirmation.
>
> Agreed --- one could make an argument for either 'false' or NULL
> result, but surely not 'true'.
I would think that it should return NULL since it's not inside nor outside the
polygon, but I'm fine with false.
> I wonder if Horiguchi-san's patch [1] improves this case.
Oh I totally missed that patch :(
After a quick look I see this addition in point_inside():
+ /* NaN makes the point cannot be inside the polygon */
+ if (unlikely(isnan(x) || isnan(y)))
+ return 0;
So I would assume that it should fix this case too. I'll check tomorrow.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-03-30 15:40:10 | Re: Autovacuum on partitioned table (autoanalyze) |
Previous Message | Daniil Zakhlystov | 2021-03-30 15:22:25 | Re: libpq compression |