Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, 22:50 Tom Lane, <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Actually, after staring at those results awhile longer, I decided
>> they were wrong. The results shown here seem actually sane ---
>> for instance, -Infinity shouldn't "infinitely precede" itself,
>> I think. (Maybe if you got solipsistic enough you could argue
>> that that is valid, but it seems pretty bogus.)
> Hmm, that code looks a bit fishy to me, but I really need to think about it
> some more. I'll take another look tomorrow, and maybe it'll become clearer.
It's certainly verbose, so I'd like to find a more concise way to
write the logic. But the v2 results seem right.
regards, tom lane
