| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | amborodin(at)acm(dot)org, Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, mb(at)0xfb(dot)imm(dot)uran(dot)ru |
| Subject: | Re: GiST penalty functions [PoC] |
| Date: | 2016-09-01 12:47:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20302.1472734029@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> writes:
> Does every supported Postgres platform conforms to IEEE 754 floating
> point specification?
Possibly, but it is against project policy to allow code to assume so.
That pack_float function is absolutely not acceptable IMV, and would
still be if it were adequately documented, which it's far away from
being.
On general grounds, I would forget all the "inline"s. Modern compilers
are generally able to make their own decisions about it, and trying to put
your thumb on the scales this heavily is not likely to improve the code.
Haven't really read the patch, just responding to a couple points you
mentioned in the intro.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Borodin | 2016-09-01 13:00:36 | Re: GiST penalty functions [PoC] |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-01 12:39:12 | Re: pg_basebackup stream xlog to tar |