Re: NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)

2018-05-17 Thread Tom Lane
Huong Dangminh writes: > Thank you. The patch looks fine to me. > Also, I have done the "make check" in Windows and Linux environment with no > problem. Pushed, thanks for reviewing/testing. regards, tom lane

RE: NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)

2018-05-17 Thread Huong Dangminh
Hi, > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > David Rowley writes: > > On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm not particularly fussed about getting credit for that. However, > >> looking again at how that patch series turned

Re: NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)

2018-05-16 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 16 May 2018 at 14:44, Tom Lane wrote: > Dean Rasheed writes: >> In the case 1 ^ NaN = 1, what should the result scale be? > > The result is exact, so I don't see a reason to be worried about its > scale. Messing with the scale would also require

Re: NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)

2018-05-16 Thread David Rowley
On 16 May 2018 at 09:55, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley writes: >> On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I'm not particularly fussed about getting credit for that. However, >>> looking again at how that patch series

Re: NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)

2018-05-16 Thread Tom Lane
Dean Rasheed writes: > On 15 May 2018 at 22:55, Tom Lane wrote: >> Here's a proposed patch for that. > In the case 1 ^ NaN = 1, what should the result scale be? The result is exact, so I don't see a reason to be worried about its scale. Messing

Re: NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)

2018-05-16 Thread Dean Rasheed
On 15 May 2018 at 22:55, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley writes: >> On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I'm not particularly fussed about getting credit for that. However, >>> looking again at how that patch series

NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)

2018-05-15 Thread Tom Lane
David Rowley writes: > On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not particularly fussed about getting credit for that. However, >> looking again at how that patch series turned out --- ie, that >> we ensured POSIX behavior for NaNs only