Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and
Date: 2006-12-29 16:52:05
Message-ID: 13444.1167411125@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com> writes:
> Note that taking a signal on an FP exception is a horribly expensive 
> proposition- we're talking about hundreds or thousands of clock cycles 
> here.  But it's probably worthwhile vr.s the cost of testing every 
> floating point result, as generally FP exceptions will be rare (probably 
> even more rare in database work than in general).  So it's probably 
> worthwhile.

I think we should probably stay away from relying on signals for this
on portability grounds.  The cost of checking the results is small, and
will get smaller if we eliminate or simplify CheckFloat[48]Val as is
being discussed here.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: August ZajoncDate: 2006-12-29 17:08:00
Subject: Re: TODO: GNU TLS
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-29 16:49:23
Subject: Re: XML support in MSVC build

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Roman KononovDate: 2006-12-29 17:11:29
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #2846: inconsistent and confusing
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-12-29 16:49:23
Subject: Re: XML support in MSVC build

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group