Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Cc: emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve geometric types
Date: 2018-08-09 09:42:16
Message-ID: 20180809.184216.149072281.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Wed, 8 Aug 2018 14:39:54 +0200, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <6ecb4f61-1fb1-08a1-31d6-e58e9c352374(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>
>
> On 08/03/2018 02:39 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > On 08/03/2018 06:40 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> I'm not confident on replacing double to float8 partially in gist
> >> code. After the 0002 patch applied, I see most of problematic
> >> usage of double or bare arithmetic on dimentional values in
> >> gistproc.c.
> >>
> >>> static inline float
> >>> non_negative(float val)
> >>> {
> >>>     if (val >= 0.0f)
> >>>         return val;
> >>>     else
> >>>         return 0.0f;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> It is used as "non_negative(overlap)", where overlap is float4,
> >> which is calculated using float8_mi.  Float4 makes sense only if
> >> we need to store a large number of it to somewhere but they are
> >> just working varialbles. Couldn't we eliminate float4 that
> >> doesn't have a requirement to do so?
> >>
> > I'm not sure I follow. The patch does not modify non_negative() at
> > all, and we still call it like this:
> >     if (non_negative(overlap) < non_negative(context->overlap) ||
> >         (range > context->range &&
> >          non_negative(overlap) <= non_negative(context->overlap)))
> >         selectthis = true;
> > where all the "overlap" values are still float4. The only thing that
> > changed here is that instead of doing the arithmetic operations
> > directly we call float8_mi/float8_div to benefit from the float8
> > handling.
> > So I'm not sure how does the patch beaks this? And what do you mean by
> > 'eliminate float4'?
> >
>
> Kyotaro-san, can you explain what your concerns regarding this bit
> are? I'd like to get 0002 committed, but I'm not sure I understand
> your point about the changes in gist code, so I can't address
> them. And I certainly don't want to just ignore them ...

It doesn't break nothing so nothing must be done with this. Just
I was a bit uneasy to see meaninglessly used foat4. Sorry for
the unnecessary argument.

After all I don't object to commit it in this shape.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-08-09 09:53:46 Re: 9.6.10 build warning on Fedora 28
Previous Message Devrim Gündüz 2018-08-09 09:30:23 9.6.10 build warning on Fedora 28