Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well, my 2 cents is that though we consider NULL when ordering via ORDER > > BY, we ignore it in MAX because it really isn't a value, and NaN seems > > to be similar to NULL. > > Good idea, but I don't think we can get away with it. The spec says > that MAX/MIN have to be consistent with the comparison operators (and > therefore with ORDER BY): > > iii) If MAX or MIN is specified, then the result is respec- > tively the maximum or minimum value in TXA. These results > are determined using the comparison rules specified in > Subclause 8.2, "<comparison predicate>". > > NULL can be special, because it acts specially in comparisons anyway. > But NaN is just a value of the datatype. > > I'd be willing to go against the spec if I thought that having > ignore-NaNs behavior was sufficiently important, but I don't think it's > important enough to disregard the spec...
Yep. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
