Re: Collation order for btree-indexable datatypes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Collation order for btree-indexable datatypes
Date: 2001-05-03 01:32:25
Message-ID: 20924.988853545@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Comparing NaN/Invalid seems so off the beaten path that we would just
> wait for 7.2. That and no one has reported a problem with it so far.

Do you consider "vacuum analyze" on the regression database to be
off the beaten path? How about creating an index on a numeric column
that contains NaNs, or a timestamp column that contains Invalid?

Unless you believe these values are not being used in the field at all,
there's a problem. (And if you do believe that, you shouldn't be
worried about my changing their behavior ;-))

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-05-03 01:48:25 Re: Collation order for btree-indexable datatypes
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-05-03 00:54:21 Re: XFS File systems and PostgreSQL