From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Wrong results from in_range() tests with infinite offset
In-reply-to: 
 <CAEZATCVXfxCR+2gCSwFMQPfyFUVNzY7U6oHfCfjD1OCCVfWUiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3393130.1594925893@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3464257.1594936216@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAEZATCVXfxCR+2gCSwFMQPfyFUVNzY7U6oHfCfjD1OCCVfWUiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:47:14 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3506767.1594947597.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 20:59:57 -0400
Message-ID: <3506768.1594947597@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, 22:50 Tom Lane, <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Actually, after staring at those results awhile longer, I decided
>> they were wrong.  The results shown here seem actually sane ---
>> for instance, -Infinity shouldn't "infinitely precede" itself,
>> I think.  (Maybe if you got solipsistic enough you could argue
>> that that is valid, but it seems pretty bogus.)

> Hmm, that code looks a bit fishy to me, but I really need to think about it
> some more. I'll take another look tomorrow, and maybe it'll become clearer.

It's certainly verbose, so I'd like to find a more concise way to
write the logic.  But the v2 results seem right.

			regards, tom lane