X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.192]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AF6D1C4C1 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:09:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (svr4.postgresql.org [64.117.224.192]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15892-08 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:09:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A587FD1C4E1 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 03:09:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6M699Q3004075; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:09:09 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: Jean-Luc Lachance , "Michael S. Tibbetts" , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: min() and NaN In-reply-to: <200307220134.h6M1Yhr09877@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200307220134.h6M1Yhr09877@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:34:43 -0400" Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:09:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4074.1058854149@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200307/316 X-Sequence-Number: 14430 Bruce Momjian writes: > Is this a TODO? It'll only take ten minutes to make it a DONE, once we figure out what the behavior ought to be. So far I think both Stephan and I argued that MIN/MAX ought to treat NaN as larger than all ordinary values, for consistency with the comparison operators. That was not the behavior Michael wanted, but I don't see that we have much choice given the wording of the SQL spec. Does anyone want to argue against that definition? regards, tom lane