Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: numeric regression test passes, but why?
Date: 2018-01-11 16:23:55
Message-ID: 20180111162355.yt76yvde236bab6a@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker) writes:
>
> > The behaviour seems to have changed in 9.6:
>
> Indeed, https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/release-9-6.html
> has the following entry:
>
> * Improve the accuracy of the ln(), log(), exp(), and pow() functions
> for type numeric (Dean Rasheed)

Well, the test line was added with that commit (7d9a4737c268), and
indeed its comment says this used to fail:

+-- cases that used to error out
+select 0.12 ^ (-25);
+ ?column?
+-------------------------------------------
+ 104825960103961013959336.4983657883169110
+(1 row)

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-01-11 16:25:22 Re: Identifying ALTER TABLE "sub-command"
Previous Message Ildar Musin 2018-01-11 16:21:46 Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench