Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 at 18:09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Clearly these functions must reject NaN histogram bounds, for >> the same reason they reject infinite bounds. But I don't see >> any reason why they couldn't treat a NaN operand as valid. >> Should we change them? (I imagine this'd be a HEAD-only >> change, and probably v19 material at this point.)
> Yes, I think that's a good idea (for v19 I would have thought). > Allowing the operand to be NaN definitely seems preferable to throwing > an error, since the operand might well come from data in a table > containing NaNs. I started a new thread for that, since it's no longer docs material: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2822872.1750540911%40sss.pgh.pa.us regards, tom lane
