On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 at 18:09, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 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
> g
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 at 18:09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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 imagin
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 at 22:19, Tom Lane 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,
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 at 22:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So concretely, how about the attached?
>
LGTM (though I'm not sure it really needs the word "therefore" in the
first hunk).
There are also a couple of code comments that need fixing --
width_bucket_float8() comes with the following comment:
* '
