At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:46:16 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:26:00 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > wrote in > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:39:40PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:02:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Agreed --- one could make an argument for either 'false' or NULL > > >> result, but surely not 'true'. > > > > > > I would think that it should return NULL since it's not inside nor > > > outside the > > > polygon, but I'm fine with false. > > > > Yeah, this is trying to make an undefined point fit into a box that > > has a definition, so "false" does not make sense to me either here as > > it implies that the point exists? NULL seems adapted here. > > Sounds reasonable. The function may return NULL for other cases so > it's easily changed to NULL. > > # But it's bothersome to cover all parallels..
Hmm. Many internal functions handles bool, which cannot handle the case of NaN naturally. In short, it's more invasive than expected. > Does anyone oppose to make the case NULL? If no one objects, I'll do > that. Mmm. I'd like to reduce from +1 to +0.7 or so, considering the amount of needed work... regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
