Re: Wrong results from in_range() tests with infinite offset

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Wrong results from in_range() tests with infinite offset
Date: 2020-07-21 02:06:32
Message-ID: 794665.1595297192@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> The other three cases where we'd hit NaNs are likewise symmetric with
> non-NaN cases that'd return TRUE. Hence, I'm forced to the conclusion
> that you've got it right above. I might write the code a little
> differently, but const-TRUE-for-NaN-cases seems like the right behavior.
> So I withdraw my objection to defining it this way. Unless somebody
> else weighs in, I'll commit it like that in a day or two.

Pushed, but I chickened out of back-patching. The improvement in what
happens for finite comparison values seems somewhat counterbalanced by
the possibility that someone might not like the definition we arrived
at for infinities. So, it's not quite an open-and-shut bug fix, so
I just put it in HEAD (for now anyway).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message k.jamison@fujitsu.com 2020-07-21 02:36:14 RE: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-07-20 23:46:24 Re: NaN divided by zero should yield NaN