NaNs in numeric_power (was Re: Postgres 11 release notes)

David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 16 May 2018 at 02:01, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm not particularly fussed about getting credit for that. However,
>> looking again at how that patch series turned out --- ie, that
>> we ensured POSIX behavior for NaNs only in HEAD --- I wonder
>> whether we shouldn't do what was mentioned in the commit log for
>> 6bdf1303, and teach numeric_pow() about these same special cases.
>> It seems like it would be more consistent to change both functions
>> for v11, rather than letting that other shoe drop in some future
>> major release.

> I'm inclined to agree. It's hard to imagine these two functions
> behaving differently in regards to NaN input is useful to anyone.

Here's a proposed patch for that.

regards, tom lane