On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:39 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:49 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Meh. As I said before, we're not in the business of improving on what > >> libm does --- if someone has a beef with the results, they need to take > >> it to their platform's libm maintainer, not us. The point of testing > >> this at all is just to ensure that we've wired up the SQL functions > >> to the library functions correctly. > > > Pretty sure we don't even need a test for that. asinh() isn't going > > to call creat() by mistake. > > No, but that's not the hazard. I have a very fresh-in-mind example: > at one point while tweaking Laetitia's patch, I'd accidentally changed > datanh so that it called tanh not atanh. The previous set of tests did > not reveal that :-(
Well, that was a goof, but it's not likely that such a regression will ever be reintroduced. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
