| 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: | Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>, "Michael S(dot) Tibbetts" <mtibbetts(at)head-cfa(dot)cfa(dot)harvard(dot)edu>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: min() and NaN |
| Date: | 2003-07-22 06:09:09 |
| Message-ID: | 4074.1058854149@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Is this a TODO?
It'll only take ten minutes to make it a DONE, once we figure out what
the behavior ought to be. So far I think both Stephan and I argued that
MIN/MAX ought to treat NaN as larger than all ordinary values, for
consistency with the comparison operators. That was not the behavior
Michael wanted, but I don't see that we have much choice given the
wording of the SQL spec. Does anyone want to argue against that
definition?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Girish Bajaj | 2003-07-22 07:59:31 | time delay function |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-07-22 05:09:47 | Re: How access to array component |