| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Clive Page <cgp(at)star(dot)le(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Non-standard function names |
| Date: | 2004-06-23 16:26:46 |
| Message-ID: | 3357.1088008006@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Clive Page <cgp(at)star(dot)le(dot)ac(dot)uk> writes:
> The problems come with LN and LOG which Postgres uses for logarithms to
> base e and 10 respectively: the JDBC standard uses LOG and LOG10
> respectively, so that any fix would mean LOG changed its meaning. I don't
> see an easy solution here; maybe both LOGE and LOG10 could be provided, at
> least there would then be only one difference from the JDBC standard.
loge() strikes me as pointless; you might as well just use ln().
I don't have any objections to the other proposed additions though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-23 16:30:32 | Re: ERROR: Unable to format timestamp; internal coding error |
| Previous Message | Stef | 2004-06-23 16:07:21 | ERROR: Unable to format timestamp; internal coding error |