Neil Conway wrote: > On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Seems like a complete nonstarter, unfortunately. btree requires the > > datatype to have a total order, and I can't see that changing, so NaN > > loses. > > Well, yeah, that would be the major impediment to implementing it. We > could just not define a total order on types with a NaN value, but I > agree that's probably not a net win... :) > > BTW, it seems that while Oracle provides an IS NAN construct, they also > treat NaN as equal to itself (which makes me question why they added IS > NAN in the first place). So perhaps it is sufficient to leave things as > they are...
Agreed. We do have something in the documentation about it now too. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
