Le jeu. 1 avr. 2021 à 15:54, Laurenz Albe a
écrit :
> On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 09:35 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@
> polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
> > > > > > > > > ?column?
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >t
> > > > > > > > >
On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 09:35 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > > > > > SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@ polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
> > > > > > > > ?column?
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >t
> > > > > > > >(1 row)
> >
> > If you think of "NaN" literally as "not a number
At Thu, 01 Apr 2021 09:34:40 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> I have to change almost all boolean-returning functions to
> tri-state-boolean ones. I'll give it try a bit futther.
The attached is a rush work of that, on top of the (rebased version of
the) base patch. Disregarding its u
At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:01:08 +0200, Laurenz Albe
wrote in
> On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:48 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > > > > SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@ polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
> > > > > > > ?column?
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > t
> > > > > > > (1 row)
> > >
At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:30:41 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote
in
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:48:16PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > Thanks! However, Michael's suggestion is worth considering. What do
> > you think about makeing NaN-involved comparison return NULL? If you
> > agree to tha
On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:48 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > > > > SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@ polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
> > > > > > ?column?
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > t
> > > > > > (1 row)
> > > >
> > > > Agreed --- one could make an argument for either 'false' or NU
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:48:16PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>
> Thanks! However, Michael's suggestion is worth considering. What do
> you think about makeing NaN-involved comparison return NULL? If you
> agree to that, I'll make a further change to the patch.
As I mentioned in [1] I thin
At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:46:16 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote in
> At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:26:00 +0900, Michael Paquier
> wrote in
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:39:40PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Agreed --- one could
At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 12:04:26 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote
in
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:39:40PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Julien Rouhaud writes:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:47:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > > >>
At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:26:00 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:39:40PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Agreed --- one could make an argument for either 'false' or NULL
> >> result, but surely not 'true'.
>
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:39:40PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Julien Rouhaud writes:
> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:47:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> > >> I'd say that this is certainly wrong:
> > >> SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:39:40PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Agreed --- one could make an argument for either 'false' or NULL
>> result, but surely not 'true'.
>
> I would think that it should return NULL since it's not inside nor o
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:47:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> >> I'd say that this is certainly wrong:
> >> SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@ polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
> >>
> >> ?column?
> >> --
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:47:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>> I'd say that this is certainly wrong:
>> SELECT point('NaN','NaN') <@ polygon('(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,0)');
>>
>> ?column?
>> --
>> t
>> (1 row)
> Yeah that's what I think too, but I wanted to have
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:47:05PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 17:57 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > Getting a consistent behavior shouldn't be hard, but I'm unsure which
> > behavior
> > is actually correct.
>
> I'd say that this is certainly wrong:
>
> SELECT point
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 17:57 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> While running some sanity checks on the regression tests, I found one test
> that
> returns different results depending on whether an index or a sequential scan
> is
> used.
>
> Minimal reproducer:
>
> =# CREATE TABLE point_tbl AS selec
Hi,
While running some sanity checks on the regression tests, I found one test that
returns different results depending on whether an index or a sequential scan is
used.
Minimal reproducer:
=# CREATE TABLE point_tbl AS select '(nan,nan)'::point f1;
=# CREATE INDEX ON point_tbl USING gist(f1);
=
17 matches
Mail list logo
