Bill Kim <billkimjh@gmail.com> writes:
> missed the file and please refer to attached.
OK, thanks. I didn't go over this in detail yet, but at first
glance it looks reasonable.
What I am wondering right now is whether it's better to back-patch
this or leave well enough alone. Given that we've now had two
independent complaints, maybe there are enough people using btree_gist
with NaNs to justify a back-patch, even though it'd force them to
reindex.
In any case, sneaking it into v19 seems reasonable.
regards, tom lane
