From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: xinwen@stu.scu.edu.cn
cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #17819: The assert failed #17334 has not been repaired
In-reply-to: <17819-1e12c61d0829db39@postgresql.org>
References: <17819-1e12c61d0829db39@postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
	message dated "Thu, 02 Mar 2023 11:46:06 +0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1908489.1677773340.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 11:09:00 -0500
Message-ID: <1908490.1677773340@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1908490.1677773340%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes:
> The assert failed reported in #17334
> (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17334-135f485c21739caa%40postgres=
ql.org)
> has not been repaired.

If supporting NaNs in geometric types excites you, then by all means
step up and work on it, but it's not a high-priority thing for most
of us.  We've put some effort into the area before (e.g. [1]) but
arriving at self-consistent definitions is hard, and implementing
them is messy, and TBH the geometric types are a development backwater
in the first place.

At this point I'd be about ready to forbid NaNs in geometric types.
But even making that happen is work that nobody's volunteered for.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAGf+fX70rWFOk5cd00uMfa__0y=
P+vtQg5ck7c2Onb-Yczp0URA@mail.gmail.com