On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, 22:50 Tom Lane, <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: > > When the current row's value is +infinity, actual computation of > > base - offset would yield NaN, making it a bit unclear whether > > we should consider -infinity to be in-range. It seems to me that > > we should, as that gives more natural-looking results in the test > > cases, so that's how the patch does it. > > 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. Regards, Dean
