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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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

Browse pgsql-patches by date

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