| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types |
| Date: | 2017-10-03 09:35:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20171003093521.yq2swufalfngbdpm@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm potentially willing to commit a patch that just makes the
> pg_hypot() -> hypot() change and does nothing else, if there are not
> objections to that change, but I want to be sure that we'll know right
> away if that turns out to break.
Uh, I thought pg_hypot() was still needed on our oldest supported
platforms. Or is hypot() already supported there? If not, I suppose we
can keep the HYPOT() macro, and have it use hypot() on platforms that
have it and pg_hypot elsewhere? That particular fraction of 0001 seemed
a bit dubious to me, as the largest possible source of platform
dependency issues.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrien Nayrat | 2017-10-03 09:45:24 | Re: Possible SSL improvements for a newcomer to tackle |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-10-03 09:16:23 | Re: Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw |