Re: min() and NaN

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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