At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:30:41 +0800, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:48:16PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > > > Thanks! However, Michael's suggestion is worth considering. What do > > you think about makeing NaN-involved comparison return NULL? If you > > agree to that, I'll make a further change to the patch. > > As I mentioned in [1] I think that returning NULL would the right thing to do. > But you mentioned elsewhere that it would need a lot more work to make the > code > work that way, so given that we're 7 days away from the feature freeze maybe > returning false would be a better option. One important thing to consider is
Agreed that it's a better option. I have to change almost all boolean-returning functions to tri-state-boolean ones. I'll give it try a bit futther. > that we should consistently return NULL for similar cases, and having some > discrepancy there would be way worse than returning false everywhere. Sure. > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210330153940.vmncwnmuw3qnpkfa@nol regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
