At Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:30:41 +0800, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:48:16PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >
> > Thanks! However, Michael's suggestion is worth considering. What do
> > you think about makeing NaN-involved comparison return NULL? If you
> > agree to that, I'll make a further change to the patch.
>
> As I mentioned in [1] I think that returning NULL would the right thing to do.
> But you mentioned elsewhere that it would need a lot more work to make the code
> work that way, so given that we're 7 days away from the feature freeze maybe
> returning false would be a better option. One important thing to consider is
Agreed that it's a better option.
I have to change almost all boolean-returning functions to
tri-state-boolean ones. I'll give it try a bit futther.
> that we should consistently return NULL for similar cases, and having some
> discrepancy there would be way worse than returning false everywhere.
Sure.
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210330153940.vmncwnmuw3qnpkfa@nol
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
