Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: >> I was wondering about that too. It seems like it'd be a wise idea to >> further constrain s and/or n to ensure that the s > 1 code path doesn't do >> anything too awful ...
> Yep. The attached version enforces s >= 1.001, which avoids the worse cost
> of iterating, according to my small tests.
Seems reasonable. Pushed with minor documentation editing.
regards, tom lane
