Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:06 AM, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <
> m...@komzpa.net> wrote:
>> What is rationale behind this circle?
> I would prefer to rather forbid any geometries with infs and nans.
> However, then upgrade process will suffer. User with such geometries would
> get errors during dump/restore, pg_upgraded instances would still contain
> invalid values...
Yeah, that ship has sailed unfortunately.
>> It seems to me that any circle with radius of any Infinity should become a
>> [-Infinity .. Infinity, -Infinity .. Infinity] box.Then you won't have
>> NaNs, and index structure shouldn't be broken.
> We probably should produce [-Infinity .. Infinity, -Infinity .. Infinity]
> box for any geometry containing inf or nan.
Hm, we can do better in at least some cases, eg for a box ((0,1),(1,inf))
there's no reason to give up our knowledge of finite bounds for the
other three boundaries. But certainly for a NaN circle radius
what you suggest seems the most sensible thing to do.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
