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

Re: Non-standard function names

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-23 16:30:32
Subject: Re: ERROR: Unable to format timestamp; internal coding error
Previous:From: StefDate: 2004-06-23 16:07:21
Subject: ERROR: Unable to format timestamp; internal coding error

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