Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added
От | Isaac Morland |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMsGm5fN0T541Ck6Q7wED5oHLDSjdb10AMMwLzxJEY7+O7fDHw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: 'infinity'::Interval should be added
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 at 18:00, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> so I was thinking that
> postgres=# select 'infinity'::timestamp - 'infinity'::timestamp;
> would be zero rather than an error, for least surprise.
Wrong. This case needs to be undefined, because "infinity"
isn't a specific value. That's what makes it okay to define, say,
infinity plus any finite value as infinity. There are very
well-defined rules about how to calculate with infinity, and
not following them is not the way to proceed here.
tl;dr: we should model it after the behavior of IEEE float infinities,
except we'll want to throw errors where those produce NaNs.
Would it be OK to return NULL for ∞ - ∞? Then anybody who wanted 0 could get it with coalesce (although I think this is a worse idea than anybody who wants it probably realizes), and anybody who wanted the calculation to continue on would just get a NULL propagating.
Also am I right to assume that -infinity would use -INT_MAX, etc.? Or possibly -INT_MAX - 1?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: