On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Does it? In plenty of cases getting infinity rather than an error is
>> just about as useful.
>> This was argued by a certain Tom Lane a few years back ;)
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/19208.1167246902%40sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> Yeah, but I lost the argument. For better or worse, our expected
> behavior is now that we throw errors. You don't get to change that
> just because it would save a few cycles.
I don't know that we can consider the results of a discussion in 2006
to be binding policy for the indefinite future. A lot of things get
relitigated more than once per decade on this mailing list, and if we
know things now that we didn't know then (e.g. that one choice has a
far more severe performance consequence than the other) that's
reasonable justification for deciding to change our mind. Also, it's
not like there were a million votes on one side vs. just you on the
other; reading the thread, it's not at all clear that you were in the
minority with that position.
That's not to say I necessarily support Andres's proposal. Changing
query behavior is a big deal; we can't do it very often without
causing a lot of hassles for users (and maybe damaging our reputation
for stability in the process). And it's not very clear to me that
someone who does a SUM(a * b) over many rows will be happy to get
infinity rather than an error. It could be true, but I don't have the
experience to be sure of it -- and I'm a bit worried that if we change
anything, we'll only find out whether users like it after we cut the
release.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers