> Now, it's also not clear that anything in PG really cares. But if we > do care, I think we should keep pg_hypot() ... and maybe clarify the > comment a bit more.
I am not sure how useful NaNs are in geometric types context, but we allow them, so inconsistent hypot() would be a problem. I will change my patches to keep pg_hypot(). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
