On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 13:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems like a complete nonstarter, unfortunately. btree requires the
> datatype to have a total order, and I can't see that changing, so NaN
> loses.
Well, yeah, that would be the major impediment to implementing it. We
could just not define a total order on types with a NaN value, but I
agree that's probably not a net win... :)
BTW, it seems that while Oracle provides an IS NAN construct, they also
treat NaN as equal to itself (which makes me question why they added IS
NAN in the first place). So perhaps it is sufficient to leave things as
they are...
-Neil
