Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > It ERANGE's only on Inf, not underflow?  I would prefer:
> >     else if (errno == ERANGE && !isinf(result))
> 
> No objection to that, just don't take out the ERANGE test altogether
> again ;-)

Actually, when you return ERANGE, what is 'result'?  Nan?  Inf?  finite?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Put back ERANGE test in dpow(). at 2007-01-06 03:52:17 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Put back ERANGE test in dpow(). at 2007-01-06 04:07:37 from Tom Lane

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-01-06 04:07:37
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Put back ERANGE test in dpow().
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-01-06 03:52:17
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Put back ERANGE test in dpow().

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Joshua D. Drake	Date: 2007-01-06 04:05:56
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2007-01-06 03:57:32
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] wal_checksum = on (default) | off