From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bill Kim <billkimjh@gmail.com>
cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19524: NaN handling in btree_gist's float4/float8 opclasses
In-reply-to: 
 <CAMQXxch6yrJQdeHQK9Mypa9cmDKjQOc5DJ=SL72pom1djL_OLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAMQXxcgbtD2LXfX0tpgvOizxP-XxrCHV2ZDy4By_TZnJMsxXWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <FFB7AB27-9334-4F17-BF56-291845F4A9FD@yesql.se>
 <CAMQXxch1N=sZ1fsfx57VhTe=8qpmb1K1vnaB5WVyDbAs8bqExg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1703741.1782745481@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAMQXxch6yrJQdeHQK9Mypa9cmDKjQOc5DJ=SL72pom1djL_OLg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Bill Kim <billkimjh@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:27:21 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1717563.1782747310.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 11:35:10 -0400
Message-ID: <1717564.1782747310@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1717564.1782747310%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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