| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
| Cc: | rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issue with point_ops and NaN |
| Date: | 2021-03-31 06:46:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20210331.154616.1806798044410863440.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:26:00 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:39:40PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Yeah, this is trying to make an undefined point fit into a box that
> has a definition, so "false" does not make sense to me either here as
> it implies that the point exists? NULL seems adapted here.
Sounds reasonable. The function may return NULL for other cases so
it's easily changed to NULL.
# But it's bothersome to cover all parallels..
Does anyone oppose to make the case NULL? If no one objects, I'll do
that.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-03-31 06:48:16 | Re: Issue with point_ops and NaN |
| Previous Message | Markus Wanner | 2021-03-31 06:25:36 | Re: [PATCH] add concurrent_abort callback for output plugin |