Neil Conway wrote:
> 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...
Agreed. We do have something in the documentation about it now too.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
