Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 at 22:19, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So concretely, how about the attached?
> LGTM (though I'm not sure it really needs the word "therefore" in the
> first hunk).
OK, done that way.
> There are also a couple of code comments that need fixing --
Good points, also done.
While looking at those comments, I also noted that there is a
strange inconsistency between width_bucket_array and
width_bucket_float8/width_bucket_numeric. Namely, the latter
two reject an "operand" that is NaN, while width_bucket_array
goes out of its way to accept it and treat it in our usual
fashion as sorting higher than all non-NaNs.
Clearly these functions must reject NaN histogram bounds, for
the same reason they reject infinite bounds. But I don't see
any reason why they couldn't treat a NaN operand as valid.
Should we change them? (I imagine this'd be a HEAD-only
change, and probably v19 material at this point.)
regards, tom lane
