Re: Numeric version of factorial()

Patch attached and applied. Thanks.

I adjusted the oid so prevent a duplicate, and adjusted the regression
test to remove comments on now non-existant functions.

I also tested the output and it looks good:

test=> select numeric_fac(10);
numeric_fac
-------------
3628800
(1 row)

test=> select numeric_fac(1);
numeric_fac
-------------
1
(1 row)

test=> select numeric_fac(2);
numeric_fac
-------------
2
(1 row)

test=> select numeric_fac(4);
numeric_fac
-------------
24
(1 row)

test=> select numeric_fac(3);
numeric_fac
-------------
6
(1 row)

I will check the docs now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Attached is a patch implementing factorial(), returning numeric. Points to
> note:
>
> 1) arttype is numeric. I thought this was the best way of allowing
> arbitarily large factorials, even though factorial(2^63) is a large
> number. Happy to change to integers if this is overkill.
> 2) since we're accepting numeric arguments, the patch tests for floats. If
> a numeric is passed with non-zero decimal portion, an error is raised
> since (from memory) they are undefined.
> 3) I have not removed factorial([int2|int4|int8]), not their operator
> counterparts since I didn't know what people would want done with these.
> 4) I haven't added any documentation but am happy to once I know if people
> want int or numeric arguments.

> Attached is a revised patch based on your Tom's comments. It removes
> int[248]fac(), modifies regression tests (which referenced int4fac()),
> and implements a much cleaned numeric_fac().

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073